Addressing Verbosity in Language Models
A look into verbosity compensation and its impact on language models.
Yusen Zhang, Sarkar Snigdha Sarathi Das, Rui Zhang
― 4 min read
Table of Contents
- What is Verbosity Compensation?
- Why is it a Problem?
- Our Findings
- Mitigating Verbosity Compensation
- The Five Types of Verbosity Compensation
- Measuring the Impact of Verbosity
- Connection with Model Performance
- The Role of Model Capability
- The Cascade Model Selection Algorithm
- Experiment Time!
- Conclusion
- Original Source
- Reference Links
When people aren’t sure about an answer, they often end up talking too much, thinking that maybe part of what they say will be right. This same tendency can happen with large language models (LLMs), and we call this "Verbosity Compensation" (VC). Unfortunately, this can confuse users, slow things down, and add unnecessary costs because the models generate more words than needed.
What is Verbosity Compensation?
Verbosity Compensation happens when a language model produces long-winded answers even when it could be brief. Instead of giving a straight answer, the model might add extra words that don’t really matter. If you’ve ever heard someone go on and on when they could have said it in a few words, you get the idea!
Why is it a Problem?
- User Confusion: When responses are too verbose, users can feel lost. They can't easily find the information they need.
- Increased Costs: Producing long responses takes more time and resources, which can lead to higher costs for services that rely on these models.
Our Findings
After looking into the behavior of 14 different large language models, we came to three main conclusions:
-
Widespread Issue: Verbosity Compensation is common across all models we studied. For example, one model (GPT-4) had a VC rate of 50.40%!
-
Performance Gap: There’s a big difference in how well verbose and concise answers do. On one test, the models that were too wordy were 27.61% less effective than those that kept it short.
-
Uncertainty Connection: The more verbose a response, the more uncertain the model seems. It’s like when you ramble on because you aren’t totally sure of your answer!
Mitigating Verbosity Compensation
To tackle this verbosity issue, we came up with a plan. We designed a simple algorithm that swaps out long-winded responses for ones from a more capable model. The results showed that this technique could reduce verbosity from a high of 63.81% down to 16.16% in one model!
The Five Types of Verbosity Compensation
After analyzing various models, we found five main ways verbosity creeps in:
- Repeating Questions: The model rephrases the question instead of answering it.
- Ambiguity: The response is vague or unclear.
- Enumerating: The model lists multiple potential answers trying to cover its bases.
- Verbose Details: The answer includes unnecessary explanations.
- Verbose Format: The response uses complex structures instead of a simple answer.
Measuring the Impact of Verbosity
We wanted to see how verbosity affects performance. We compared the scores of verbose and concise responses. The results were clear: verbose answers often scored lower.
Connection with Model Performance
When a model is verbose, it doesn’t just take longer; it also does worse on tasks. This suggests that verbosity and performance are linked, and the more uncertain a model is, the more it tends to ramble.
The Role of Model Capability
Interestingly, we noticed that better models don’t always fix the verbosity issue. Even strong models can fall into the trap of being wordy. It turns out that just making a model bigger or giving it more context doesn’t eliminate the problem.
The Cascade Model Selection Algorithm
To help with verbosity, we created a Cascade Model Selection algorithm. Here’s how it works: we start with a less complex model and, if it goes on too long, we switch to a more advanced model.
Experiment Time!
We used five datasets to study verbosity and how our algorithm worked. We mixed and matched different models and compared their performance. Overall, our method significantly lowered the frequency of verbosity across the board.
Conclusion
In summary, we found that Verbosity Compensation is a real issue in language models that can confuse users and waste resources. By categorizing this behavior and developing a new strategy to reduce it, we aim to make LLMs more effective and user-friendly.
It’s all about getting to the point! So next time you need information, you might just be better off asking a language model rather than your friend who loves to chat.
Title: Verbosity $\neq$ Veracity: Demystify Verbosity Compensation Behavior of Large Language Models
Abstract: Although Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated their strong capabilities in various tasks, recent work has revealed LLMs also exhibit undesirable behaviors, such as hallucination and toxicity, limiting their reliability and broader adoption. In this paper, we discover an understudied type of undesirable behavior of LLMs, which we term Verbosity Compensation (VC), similar to the hesitation behavior of humans under uncertainty, where they respond with excessive words such as repeating questions, introducing ambiguity, or providing excessive enumeration. We present the first work that defines and analyzes Verbosity Compensation, explores its causes, and proposes a simple mitigating approach. Our experiments, conducted on five datasets of knowledge and reasoning-based QA tasks with 14 newly developed LLMs, reveal three conclusions. 1) We reveal a pervasive presence of VC across all models and all datasets. Notably, GPT-4 exhibits a VC frequency of 50.40%. 2) We reveal the large performance gap between verbose and concise responses, with a notable difference of 27.61% on the Qasper dataset. We also demonstrate that this difference does not naturally diminish as LLM capability increases. Both 1) and 2) highlight the urgent need to mitigate the frequency of VC behavior and disentangle verbosity with veracity. We propose a simple yet effective cascade algorithm that replaces the verbose responses with the other model-generated responses. The results show that our approach effectively alleviates the VC of the Mistral model from 63.81% to 16.16% on the Qasper dataset. 3) We also find that verbose responses exhibit higher uncertainty across all five datasets, suggesting a strong connection between verbosity and model uncertainty. Our dataset and code are available at https://github.com/psunlpgroup/VerbosityLLM.
Authors: Yusen Zhang, Sarkar Snigdha Sarathi Das, Rui Zhang
Last Update: 2024-12-07 00:00:00
Language: English
Source URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.07858
Source PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2411.07858
Licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Changes: This summary was created with assistance from AI and may have inaccuracies. For accurate information, please refer to the original source documents linked here.
Thank you to arxiv for use of its open access interoperability.