Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the relationship between data frequency and the learnability of tasks using formal languages derived from probabilistic finite automata, providing a controlled environment for analysis. By introducing the binning semiring, the authors enable causal evaluation and demonstrate that traditional correlational methods can lead to misleading conclusions due to confounding factors. The findings highlight the importance of causal interventions in assessing task learnability, revealing that standard practices may overlook critical insights in natural language processing contexts.
Causal evaluation reveals that relying on correlational analysis can lead to significant misinterpretations of task learnability in language models.
Language models, as multi-task learners, acquire a wide range of abilities during training. A fundamental question is how much task-specific data is needed to learn a given task. Answering this for natural language is difficult: tasks are hard to delineate and can confound one another. To rigorously investigate the relationship between data frequency and learnability, we turn to a controlled setting using formal languages induced from probabilistic finite automata. These serve as a methodological testbed to demonstrate that standard correlational evaluation practices are inherently flawed. To enable causal analysis, we introduce the binning semiring, an algebraic object that lets us control how often a targeted property occurs in a sampled corpus. We formulate the experimental pipeline as a causal graphical model and derive decomposed Kullback-Leibler divergence metrics to measure the learnability of specific sub-tasks. Our experiments show that evaluating learnability without causal intervention leads to incorrect conclusions due to confounders in correlational analysis, and serve as a warning about correlational pitfalls in natural-language settings.
