Skip to content
Back to the collection

The Curious Case of Neural Text Degeneration

Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, Yejin Choi

2019 · arXiv

Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
4
Readers
4
Months
4
What’s in a score?

From the abstract

Despite considerable advancements with deep neural language models, the enigma of neural text degeneration persists when these models are tested as text generators. The counter-intuitive empirical observation is that even though the use of likelihood as training objective leads to high quality models for a broad range of language understanding tasks, using likelihood as a decoding objective leads to text that is bland and strangely repetitive. In this paper, we reveal surprising distributional differences between human text and machine text. In addition, we find that decoding strategies alone can dramatically effect the quality of machine text, even when generated from exactly the same neural language model. Our findings motivate Nucleus Sampling, a simple but effective method to draw the best out of neural generation. By sampling text from the dynamic nucleus of the probability distribution, which allows for diversity while effectively truncating the less reliable tail of the distribution, the resulting text better demonstrates the quality of human text, yielding enhanced diversity without sacrificing fluency and coherence.

Metadata: arXiv. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

4 selected excerpts · 4 total mentions

techbruv
Neutral mention · rule
ChatGPT and other LLMs for that matter are most definitely not using beam search or greedy sampling. Greedy sampling is prone to repetition and just in general gives pretty subpar results that make no sense. While beam search is better than greedy sampling, it's too expensive (beam search with a beam width of 4 is 4x more expensive) and performs worse than other methods. In practice, you probably just wanna sample from the distribution directly after applying something like top-p: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.09751.pdf
qayxc
Neutral mention · rule
In this particular case it's excusable as English is the Lingua Franca of science today. Used to be Latin, then French and German, now it's English. No big deal IMO. In fact I kind of like the way this is going since it represents a fantastic opportunity for NL researchers to stand out simply by publishing research and corpora focused exclusively on low-resource languages and non-English/Mandarin in general. It is also important to note that most of the ML research in the field is pretty much language agnostic and is concerned with general concept such as efficient en-/decoding [1], training methods [2], and even stealing pre-trained weights from APIs (like GPT-2 or even…
Read the full comment
3) without paying for training [3] :) It's just easier to get your hands on and verify English corpora, results and pre-trained models for reproducibility than say Mongolian or Gaelic so that's a factor, too. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.09751.pdf [2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.10555.pdf [3] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.12366.pdf
gwern
Neutral mention · rule
Is beam search a good idea? Whenever anyone tries beam search on a neural language model like a char-RNN or GPT-2, it seems to generally either do little or make it much worse (by exacerbating the repetition problem), and get worse the more beams/computation you do: eg https://github.com/karpathy/char-rnn/issues/138 or https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.09751

Keep following the thread.

More in Language models

More from the same topics.