Stable pre-training is essential for achieving better-performing language models. However, tracking pre-training stability is impractical due to high computational costs. We study Token Embedding Variability as a simple proxy to estimate pre-training stability. We theoretically and empirically demonstrate that Multi-head Low-Rank Attention acts as a fundamental approach to reducing instability. This is supported by empirical findings on variants on GPT-2, demonstrating improved stability and lower perplexities, even at deeper layer counts.

Deriving meaningful sentence embeddings is crucial in capturing the semantic relationship between texts. Recent advances in building sentence embedding models have centered on replacing traditional human-generated text datasets with those generated by LLMs. However, the properties of these widely used LLM-generated texts remain largely unexplored. Here, we evaluate the quality of the LLM-generated texts from four perspectives (Positive Text Repetition, Length Difference Penalty, Positive Score Compactness, and Negative Text Implausibility) and find that there exists an inherent difference between human and LLM-generated datasets. To further enhance sentence embeddings using both human and LLM-generated datasets, we propose a novel loss function that incorporates Positive-Negative sample Augmentation (PNA) within the contrastive learning objective. Our results demonstrate that PNA effectively mitigates the sentence anisotropy problem in Wikipedia corpus (-7% compared to CLHAIF) and simultaneously improves the Spearman’s correlation in standard Semantic Textual Similarity (STS) tasks (+1.47% compared to CLHAIF).

Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive achievements in solving a broad range of tasks. Augmented by instruction fine-tuning, LLMs have also been shown to generalize in zero-shot settings as well. However, whether LLMs closely align with the human disagreement distribution has not been well-studied, especially within the scope of natural language inference (NLI). In this paper, we evaluate the performance and alignment of LLM distribution with humans using two different techniques to estimate the multinomial distribution: Monte Carlo Estimation (MCE) and Log Probability Estimation (LPE). As a result, we show LLMs exhibit limited ability in solving NLI tasks and simultaneously fail to capture human disagreement distribution. The inference and human alignment performances plunge even further on data samples with high human disagreement levels, raising concerns about their natural language understanding (NLU) ability and their representativeness to a larger human population.