Author name cluster

Alisa Liu

Possible papers associated with this exact author name in Arrow. This page groups case-insensitive exact name matches and is not a full identity disambiguation profile.

5 papers

2 author rows

NeurIPS Conference 2025 Conference Paper

Broken Tokens? Your Language Model can Secretly Handle Non-Canonical Tokenizations

Brian Zheng
Alisa Liu
Orevaoghene Ahia
Jonathan Hayase
Yejin Choi
Noah Smith

Modern tokenizers employ deterministic algorithms to map text into a single ``canonical" token sequence, yet the same string can be encoded as many non-canonical tokenizations using the language model vocabulary, including tokenizing by character. In this paper, we investigate the robustness of LMs to input encoded with non-canonical tokenizations entirely unseen during training. Surprisingly, when evaluated across 20 benchmarks, we find that instruction-tuned models retain up to 93. 4\% of their original performance when given a randomly sampled tokenization, and 90. 8\% with character-level tokenization. We find that overall stronger models tend to be more robust, and that robustness diminishes as the tokenization departs farther from the canonical form. Motivated by these results, we identify settings where non-canonical tokenization schemes can \textit{improve} performance, finding that character‑level segmentation improves string manipulation and code understanding tasks by up to 15\%, and right‑aligned digit grouping enhances large‑number arithmetic by over 33\%. Finally, we investigate the source of this robustness, finding that it arises in the instruction-tuning phase. We provide evidence that both base and post-trained models grasp the semantics of non-canonical tokenizations (perceiving them as containing misspellings). However, base models try to mimic the imagined mistakes and degenerate into nonsensical output, while post-trained models are committed to fluent responses. Overall, our findings suggest that models are less committed to their tokenizer than previously believed, and highlight the promise of intervening on tokenization at inference time to boost language model performance.

PDF Details

NeurIPS Conference 2024 Conference Paper

Data Mixture Inference Attack: BPE Tokenizers Reveal Training Data Compositions

Jonathan Hayase
Alisa Liu
Yejin Choi
Sewoong Oh
Noah A. Smith

The pretraining data of today's strongest language models remains opaque, even when their parameters are open-sourced. In particular, little is known about the proportions of different domains, languages, or code represented in the data. While a long line of membership inference attacks aim to identify training examples on an instance level, they do not extend easily to global statistics about the corpus. In this work, we tackle a task which we call data mixture inference, which aims to uncover the distributional make-up of the pretraining data. We introduce a novel attack based on a previously overlooked source of information — byte-pair encoding (BPE) tokenizers, used by the vast majority of modern language models. Our key insight is that the ordered vocabulary learned by a BPE tokenizer naturally reveals information about the token frequencies in its training data: the first token is the most common byte pair, the second is the most common pair after merging the first token, and so on. Given a tokenizer's merge list along with data samples for each category of interest (e. g. , different natural languages), we formulate a linear program that solves for the relative proportion of each category in the tokenizer's training set. Importantly, to the extent to which tokenizer training data is representative of the pretraining data, we indirectly learn about the pretraining data. In controlled experiments, we show that our attack can recover mixture ratios with high precision for tokenizers trained on known mixtures of natural languages, programming languages, and data sources. We then apply our approach to off-the-shelf tokenizers released alongside recent LMs. We confirm much publicly disclosed information about these models, and also make several new inferences: GPT-4o is much more multilingual than its predecessors, training on 10x more non-English data than GPT-3. 5, Llama 3 and Claude are trained on predominantly code, and many recent models are trained on 7-16% books. We hope our work sheds light on current design practices for pretraining data, and inspires continued research into data mixture inference for LMs.

PDF Details DOI

NeurIPS Conference 2024 Conference Paper

Decoding-Time Language Model Alignment with Multiple Objectives

Ruizhe Shi
Yifang Chen
Yushi Hu
Alisa Liu
Hannaneh Hajishirzi
Noah A. Smith
Simon S. Du

Aligning language models (LMs) to human preferences has emerged as a critical pursuit, enabling these models to better serve diverse user needs. Existing methods primarily focus on optimizing LMs for a single reward function, limiting their adaptability to varied objectives. Here, we propose $\textbf{multi-objective decoding~(MOD)}$, a decoding-time algorithm that outputs the next token from a linear combination of predictions of all base models, for any given weighting over different objectives. We exploit a common form among a family of $f$-divergence regularized alignment approaches (such as PPO, DPO, and their variants) to identify a closed-form solution by Legendre transform, and derive an efficient decoding strategy. Theoretically, we show why existing approaches can be sub-optimal even in natural settings and obtain optimality guarantees for our method. Empirical results demonstrate the effectiveness of the algorithm. For example, compared to a parameter-merging baseline, MOD achieves 12. 8\% overall reward improvement when equally optimizing towards $3$ objectives. Moreover, we experiment with MOD on combining three fully-finetuned LMs of different model sizes, each aimed at different objectives such as safety, coding, and general user preference. Unlike traditional methods that require careful curation of a mixture of datasets to achieve comprehensive improvement, we can quickly experiment with preference weightings using MOD to find the best combination of models. Our best combination reduces toxicity on Toxigen to nearly 0\% and achieves 7. 9--33. 3\% improvement across three other metrics ($\textit{i. e. }$, Codex@1, GSM-COT, BBH-COT).

PDF Details DOI

ICML Conference 2024 Conference Paper

How Language Model Hallucinations Can Snowball

Muru Zhang
Ofir Press
William Merrill
Alisa Liu
Noah A. Smith

A major risk of using language models in practical applications is their tendency to hallucinate incorrect statements. Hallucinations are often attributed to knowledge gaps in LMs, but we show that LMs sometimes produce hallucinations that they can separately recognize as incorrect. To do this, we construct three question-answering datasets where LMs often state an incorrect answer which is followed by an explanation with at least one incorrect claim. Crucially, we find that GPT-3. 5, GPT-4, and LLaMA2-70B-chat can identify 67%, 87%, and 94% of these incorrect claims, respectively. We show that this phenomenon doesn’t disappear under higher temperatures sampling, beam search, and zero-shot chain-of-thought prompting. These findings reveal that LM hallucinations can snowball: early mistakes by an LM can lead to more mistakes that otherwise would not be made.

Details

TMLR Journal 2023 Journal Article

Inverse Scaling: When Bigger Isn't Better

Ian R. McKenzie
Alexander Lyzhov
Michael Martin Pieler
Alicia Parrish
Aaron Mueller
Ameya Prabhu
Euan McLean
Xudong Shen

Work on scaling laws has found that large language models (LMs) show predictable improvements to overall loss with increased scale (model size, training data, and compute). Here, we present evidence for the claim that LMs may show inverse scaling, or worse task performance with increased scale, e.g., due to flaws in the training objective and data. We present empirical evidence of inverse scaling on 11 datasets collected by running a public contest, the Inverse Scaling Prize, with a substantial prize pool. Through analysis of the datasets, along with other examples found in the literature, we identify four potential causes of inverse scaling: (i) preference to repeat memorized sequences over following in-context instructions, (ii) imitation of undesirable patterns in the training data, (iii) tasks containing an easy distractor task which LMs could focus on, rather than the harder real task, and (iv) correct but misleading few-shot demonstrations of the task. We release the winning datasets at inversescaling.com/data to allow for further investigation of inverse scaling. Our tasks have helped drive the discovery of U-shaped and inverted-U scaling trends, where an initial trend reverses, suggesting that scaling trends are less reliable at predicting the behavior of larger-scale models than previously understood. Overall, our results suggest that there are tasks for which increased model scale alone may not lead to progress, and that more careful thought needs to go into the data and objectives for training language models.

PDF Details