TL;DR
This paper investigates when large language models can be effectively adapted for numerical tasks by analyzing the isotropy of their embedding space, providing theoretical insights and experimental validation.
Contribution
It introduces a novel isotropy-based analysis to determine conditions under which LLMs can reliably predict numerical data, bridging a gap in theoretical understanding.
Findings
Isotropic embeddings preserve structure and improve numerical prediction.
Model architecture and data characteristics influence isotropy and performance.
Theoretical guarantees depend on the shift-invariance of the softmax in LLMs.
Abstract
Vector representations of contextual embeddings learned by pre-trained large language models (LLMs) are effective in various downstream tasks in numerical domains such as time series forecasting. Despite their significant benefits, the tendency of LLMs to hallucinate in such domains can have severe consequences in applications such as energy, nature, finance, healthcare, retail and transportation, among others. To guarantee prediction reliability and accuracy in numerical domains, it is necessary to open the black box behind the LLM and provide performance guarantees through explanation. However, there is little theoretical understanding of when pre-trained language models help solve numerical downstream tasks. This paper seeks to bridge this gap by understanding when the next-word prediction capability of LLMs can be adapted to numerical domains through a novel analysis based on the…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2025 Conference Withdrawn Submission
- The paper provides a new perspective on LLM embedding structure in the context of time series analyses. The method of analyzing performance relative to isotropy is a new and potentially interesting avenue of exploration. - The interdisciplinary nature of the paper (exploring LLM applications in settings outside of the scope of NLP) is timely. - The paper is well written.
- The paper is very limited in its scope of analysis. It presents results on only two synthetic datasets that limits the generalizability of findings. Moreover, the apparent difference in performance on the two datasets is purported to be because of a difference in isotropy in embeddings, but the causal link is not actually shown. Attributing poor performance on Dataset 2 to low isotropy seems speculative without exploring other possible causes. - The theoretical claims of the paper are largely
The analyses and the intuition (for this particularly scenario) are reasonable.
1. The paper is not well written; 2. Based on my knowledge, the setting studied in this paper is not very popular, and its not well argued that this is an important problem or may impact a wide range of applications. 3. The experiments are conducted with relatively weak model (GPT-2) and no experiments are conducted on popular benchmarks, making it hard to judge the significance of the observations discussed in this paper.
- The study is well motivated in trying to understand when next token prediction capabilities of LLMs will extend to numerical data - The authors provide a plausible argument for the role of isotropy in adapting LLMs to numerical data which builds on prior work
The experimental results are not very extensive; the main experiment compares performance of a GPT model on two time series datasets and shows that the model performs better on Dataset 1, in which case the model learns isotropic representations, than Dataset 2, in which case the model does not learn isotropic representations. This seems to suggest there is some underlying property of the data that is determining the performance (the existence of isotropic representations does not necessarily see
This paper introduces a novel explanatory perspective by exploring the role of isotropy in the embedding spaces of LLMs adapted for numerical predictions. And the author attempts to give a theoretical proof for his idea.
1. The paper suffers from poor readability and overcomplication of concepts. For instance, Contribution 2 introduces a theorem (Theorem 1.) to prove "why the shift-invariance problem needs to be addressed," which I believe is entirely unnecessary. 2. I do not understand the rationale for framing regression problems as classification tasks, even though it is technically feasible. Additionally, the authors did not provide any code, and it is unclear how the time series vocabulary (mentioned in li
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
MethodsSoftmax
