question
active
question:why-did-mass-mean-probing-with-cities-neg-cities-training-data-perform-poorly-for-the-70b-model-despite-larger-than-smaller-than-performing-wellWhy did mass-mean probing with cities+neg_cities training data perform poorly for the 70B model, despite larger_than+smaller_than performing well?
Open question about scale-dependent asymmetry in training data effects
Source paper
extracted_from(2023) · Samuel Marks · Max Tegmark
Neighborhood — ranked by edge-count
Papers (1)
paper
Related by similarity (8)
cosine ≥ 0.65 · no typed edgeEntities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.
- Unexplained result pointing to asymmetry in how training on opposites affects truth probes at 70B scale
- Dissociation between classification accuracy and causal implication; training on opposites does not always help causally
- Open question raised in §7.1 about an unexplained anomalous result
- Shows that truth representations are not reducible to text probability representations
- Likely-trained MM probe is a surprisingly effective causal baseline due to correlation between truth and probability on sp_en_trans
- Selective pressure toward convergence via task generality
- Core result showing MM is superior to LR for causal implication despite similar classification accuracy
- Training on cities+neg_cities improves OOD generalization, especially on neg_sp_en_transfinding0.766Training on statements and their negations mitigates non-truth feature interference in probe directions