There have been a lot of interest in the scaling properties of Transformer models. However, not much has been done on the front of investigating the effect of scaling properties of different inductive biases and model architectures. Do model architectures scale differently? If so, how does inductive bias affect scaling behaviour? How does this influence upstream (pretraining) and downstream (transfer)? This paper conducts a systematic study of scaling behaviour of ten diverse model architectures such as Transformers, Switch Transformers, Universal Transformers, Dynamic convolutions, Performers, and recently proposed MLP-Mixers. Via extensive experiments, we show that (1) architecture is an indeed an important consideration when performing scaling and (2) the best performing model can fluctuate at different scales. We believe that the findings outlined in this work has significant implications to how model architectures are currently evaluated in the community.

In the Transformer model, “self-attention” combines information from attended embeddings into the representation of the focal embedding in the next layer. Thus, across layers of the Transformer, information originating from different tokens gets increasingly mixed. This makes attention weights unreliable as explanations probes. In this paper, we consider the problem of quantifying this flow of information through self-attention. We propose two methods for approximating the attention to input tokens given attention weights, attention rollout and attention flow, as post hoc methods when we use attention weights as the relative relevance of the input tokens. We show that these methods give complementary views on the flow of information, and compared to raw attention, both yield higher correlations with importance scores of input tokens obtained using an ablation method and input gradients.

In this paper, we define and apply representational stability analysis (ReStA), an intuitive way of analyzing neural language models. ReStA is a variant of the popular representational similarity analysis (RSA) in cognitive neuroscience. While RSA can be used to compare representations in models, model components, and human brains, ReStA compares instances of the same model, while systematically varying single model parameter. Using ReStA, we study four recent and successful neural language models, and evaluate how sensitive their internal representations are to the amount of prior context. Using RSA, we perform a systematic study of how similar the representational spaces in the first and second (or higher) layers of these models are to each other and to patterns of activation in the human brain. Our results reveal surprisingly strong differences between language models, and give insights into where the deep linguistic processing, that integrates information over multiple sentences, is happening in these models. The combination of ReStA and RSA on models and brains allows us to start addressing the important question of what kind of linguistic processes we can hope to observe in fMRI brain imaging data. In particular, our results suggest that the data on story reading from Wehbe et al./ (2014) contains a signal of shallow linguistic processing, but show no evidence on the more interesting deep linguistic processing.