Abstract:Languages are not created randomly but rather to communicate information. There is a strong association between languages and their underlying meanings, resulting in a sparse joint distribution that is heavily peaked according to their correlations. Moreover, these peak values happen to match with the marginal distribution of languages due to the sparsity. With the advent of LLMs trained on big data and large models, we can now precisely assess the marginal distribution of languages, providing a convenient means of exploring the sparse structures in the joint distribution for effective inferences. In this paper, we categorize languages as either unambiguous or {\epsilon}-ambiguous and present quantitative results to demonstrate that the emergent abilities of LLMs, such as language understanding, in-context learning, chain-of-thought prompting, and effective instruction fine-tuning, can all be attributed to Bayesian inference on the sparse joint distribution of languages.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is to understand how large language models (LLMs) achieve significant improvement in reasoning performance by leveraging the scale and data volume of these models without explicitly specifying and modeling the latent space \( \Theta \). Specifically, the author proposes a latent space theory to explain the emergent capabilities of LLMs, such as language understanding, in - context learning, chain - of - thought prompting, and effective instruction fine - tuning, which are considered to be generated through Bayesian inference on the sparse joint distribution of language.
### Core Problems of the Paper
1. **Latent Space and Language Generation**:
- The author proposes a latent space model for language generation, in which language is driven by a specific purpose (i.e., intention \( \theta \)). Each message \( x \) is generated by a latent variable \( \theta \), which determines the content of the message.
- Language can be divided into two categories: unambiguous and ε - ambiguous. Unambiguous language means that the latent intention can be determinedly inferred from the message, while ε - ambiguous language means that the latent intention can be inferred from the message with high confidence.
2. **LLMs as Universal Density Approximators**:
- The author points out that LLMs can be regarded as universal density approximators of the marginal distribution \( q(x) \). Through maximum likelihood estimation, LLMs can approximate the true marginal distribution, thereby being able to effectively explore the sparse structure of language.
3. **Language Understanding and In - context Learning**:
- The author explains how LLMs understand text prompts and generate relevant responses through conditional sampling. Even though LLMs are trained by predicting the next word, they are still able to understand the text content and generate coherent replies.
- For in - context learning, the author shows how LLMs can quickly learn new tasks by observing a small number of examples, and this learning ability in ε - ambiguous language improves as the number of provided examples increases.
4. **Chain - of - Thought Prompting and Fine - tuning**:
- The author discusses how chain - of - thought prompting helps LLMs correctly infer the final conclusion in multi - step reasoning tasks. By explicitly specifying the intermediate reasoning steps, LLMs are more likely to reach the correct conclusion.
- In terms of instruction fine - tuning, the author proposes a method to suppress harmful intentions by adjusting the transition probability \( q(\theta|\theta_x) \) from the prompt intention to the generated response, while keeping the conditional distribution \( q(y|\theta) \) unchanged to ensure the generation of high - quality responses.
### Main Contributions
- **Theoretical Framework**: Proposed a latent space theory to explain the emergent capabilities of LLMs.
- **Empirical Verification**: Verified the theoretical results through synthetic language experiments, especially the performance in ε - ambiguous language.
- **Application Prospects**: Provided an in - depth understanding of the emergent capabilities of LLMs, and provided a theoretical basis for future model optimization and applications.
### Formula Summary
- **Unambiguous Condition**:
\[
\text{Pr}(\theta_0|x) = 1
\]
- **ε - Ambiguous Condition**:
\[
\text{Pr}(\theta_0|x) \geq 1-\epsilon(x) \quad \text{with} \quad 0\leq \epsilon(x)<1
\]
- **Joint Distribution**:
\[
q(\theta, x)=
\begin{cases}
q(x) & \text{if } \theta = \theta_0\\
0 & \text{if } \theta\neq \theta_0
\end{cases}
\]
- **Deviation of Conditional Distribution**:
\[
\left|p_{\Lambda^*}(y|x)-q(y|x,\theta_x)\right|\leq \epsilon(