Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models
Authors: Jason Wei
Yi Tay
Rishi Bommasani
Colin Raffel
Barret Zoph
Sebastian Borgeaud
Dani Yogatama
Maarten Bosma
Denny Zhou
Donald Metzler
Ed H. Chi
Tatsunori Hashimoto
Oriol Vinyals
Percy Liang
Jeff Dean
William Fedus
Venue: Accepted by TMLR ()

Abstract: Scaling up language models has been shown to predictably improve performance and sample efficiency on a wide range of downstream tasks. This paper instead discusses an unpredictable phenomenon that we refer to as emergent abilities of large language models. We consider an ability to be emergent if it is not present in smaller models but is present in larger models. Thus, emergent abilities cannot be predicted simply by extrapolating the performance of smaller models. The existence of such emergence raises the question of whether additional scaling could potentially further expand the range of capabilities of language models.

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models
Jason Wei
jusonwei@googglecom com com yitay com ulprishi @stanfordddfoooooooo edu craffel@ gmaill com Serretzoph@googlee com
Yi Tay
Rishi Bommasani
Colin R
Barret Zoph'
Sebastian Borgeaud+
aborgeaud@deeppningg com dyogatama @deepmindd com
Dani Yogatama"
Maarten Bosma 1
bosma @gogle. com dennyzhou dennyzhou@google @google. com metzler@ggoogle com edchi arghileggggee..oo com thashim @stanford edu vireyals @ @deepmindd. com plang @stanfort ford. edu jeff@google. com liamfedus @google. com
Denny Zhou
Donald 1etzler
Ed H. Chi
Tatsunori Hashimoto
Oriol Vinyals 4
Percy Liang?
Jeff Dcan
William Fedus"
Google Research
Stanford University
UNC Chapel Hill 4 Mind
Reviewed on OpenReview: httpps///ppcceeeee....////eeetes
Abstract
Scaling up language models has boen shown to prodictably improve performance and sample efficiency on wide range of downstream tasks. This paper instead discusses an unpredictable phenomenon that refer to as emergent abilities of large language models. We consider ability to be emergent if it is not present in smaller models but is present in larger models. Thus, emergent abilities cannot be predicted simply by extrapolating the performance of smaller models. The existence such emergence raises the question of whether additional scaling could potentially further expand the range capabilities of language models.
1 Introduction
Language models have revolutionized natural language processing (NLP) in recent years. It is now well- that increasing the scale of language models (e.g., training compute, model parameters, etc.) can lead better performance and sample efficiency on a range of downstream NLP tasks (Devlin al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020, vnter alia). In many cases, the effect of scale on performance can often be methodologically predicted via scaling laws- for example, scaling curves for cross-entropy loss have been shown to empirically span more than seven orders of magnitude (Kaplan et al., 2020; Hoffmann et al., 2022). On the other hand, performance for certain downstream tasks counterintuitively does not appear to continuously improve as a function of scale, and such lasks cannot. be predicted ahead of time (Ganguli et al., 2022).
In this paper, we will discuss the unpredictable phenomena of emergent abilities of large language models. Emergence as an idea has been long discussed in domains such as physics, biology, and computer science (Anderson, 1972; Hwang al., 2012: Forrest, 1990; Corradini & O'Connor, 2010; Harper & Lewis, 2012, inter
1

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
alia). We will consider the following general definition of emergence, adapted from Steinhardt (2022) and rooted in a 1972 essay called "More Is Different" by Nobel prize-winning physicist Philip Anderson (Anderson, 1972):
Emergence when quontitative changes in system result in qualitative changes in behavior.
Here we will explore emergence with respect to model scale, as measured by training compute and number of model parameters. Specifically, we define emeryent abililies of large language models as abilities that are not present in smaller-scale models but are present in large-scale models; thus they cannot be predicted by simply extrapolating the performance improvements on smaller-scale models ($2). We survey emergent abilities as observed in range of prior work, categorizing them in settings such as few-shot prompting ($3) and augmented prompting strategies ($4). Emergence motivates future research why such abilities are acquired and whether more scaling will lead to further emergent abilities, which we highlight as important questions for the field ($5).
2 Emergent Abilities Definition
As a broad concept, emergence is often used informally and can be reasonably interpreted in many different ways. In this paper, we will consider focused definition of emergent abilitics of large language models:
An abilily is emergent if it is not present in smaller models but is present in larger models.
Emergent abilities would not have been directly predicted by extrapolating a scaling law (i.e. consistent performance improvements) from small-scale models. When visualized via a scaling curve (æ-axis: model scale, y-axis: performance), emergent abilities show a clear pattern- performane is near-random until a certain critical threshold of scale is reached, after which performance increases to substantially above random. This qualitative change is also known as a phase transition-a dramatic change in overall behavior that would not have been foreseen by examining smaller-scale systems (Huberman & Hogg, 1987).
Today's language models have been scaled primarily along three factors: amount of computation, number of model parameters, and training dataset size (Kaplan et al., 2020; Hoffmann et al., 2022). In this paper, we will analyze scaling curves by plotting the performance of different models where training compute for each model is measured in FLOPs on the z-axis (Hoffmann et al., 2022). Because language models trained with more compute tend also have more parameters, we additionally show plots with number of model parameters as the x-axis in Appendix D (sce Figure 11 and Figure 12, as well as Figure and Figure 10). Using training FLOPs or model parameters as the æ-axis produces curves with similar shapes due to the fact. that most dense Transformer language model families have scaled training compute roughly proportionally with model parameters (Kaplan et al., 2020).
Training dataset size is also an important factor, but we do not plot capabilities against it because many language model families use a fixed number of training examples for all model sizes (Brown et al., 2020; Rae et al., 2021; Chowdhery et al., 2022). Although we focus on training computation and model size here, there is not single proxy that adequately captures all aspects of scale. For example, Chinchilla (Hoffmann et al., 2022) has one-fourth many parameters as Gopher (Rae al., 2021) but uses similar training compute; and sparse mixture-of-exper oxpext models have more parameters per maaining/inferenn (Fedus et al., 2021; Du et al., 2021). Overall, it may be wise to view emergence as a function of many correlated variables. For example, later in Figure 4 we will also plot emergence as function of WikiText103 perplexity (Merity et al., 2016), which happens to closely correlate with training computation for Gopher/ Chinchilla (though this correlation may not hold in the long-run).
compute than dense models
Note that the scale at which an ability is first observed to emerge depends on a number of factors and is not immutable property of the ability. For instance, emergence may occur with less training compute
This survey focuses on pre-trained Transformer language models. Emergent abilities NLP more broadly, however, could go back to Miller al. (2004), Liang (2005), earlier.
2

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
fewer model parameters for models trained on higher-quality data. Conversely, emergent abilities also crucially depend on other factors such as not being limited by the amount of data, its quality, or the number of parameters in the model. Today's language models are likely not trained optimally (Hoffmannn et al., 2022), and our understanding of how to best train models will evolve over time. Our goal in this paper is not to characterize or claim that a specific scale required to observe emergent abilities, but rather, we aim discuss examples of emergent behavior prior work.
3 Few-Shot Prompted Tasks
We first discuss emergent abilities in the prompting paradigm, pop- ularized by GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020). 2 In prompting, pre-trained language model is given a prompt (e.g. a natural language instruction) of a task and completes the response without any further training or gradient updates to its parameters. Brown et al. (2020) proposed few-shot prompting, which includes a few input-output examples in the model's context (input) as preamble before asking the model to perform the task for an unseen inference-time example. An example prompt is shown in Figure 1.
Input
Reviow: This movie subia. Sentiment: negative
Output
Language model
positive.
Review: Floe this movee
Sentiment:
Figure 1: Example of an input and output for few-shot prompling.
The ability to perform a task via few-shot prompting is emergent when a model has random performance until a certain scale, after which performance increases to well-above random. Figure 2 shows eight such emergent abilitics spanning five language model familics from varions work.
BIG-Bench. Figure 2A-D depicts four emergent few-shot prompted tasks from BIG-Bench, a crowd-sourced suite over 200 beuchmarks for language model evaluation [BIG-Bench, 2022). Figure 2A shows an arithmetic benchmark that tests 3-digit addition and subtraction, as well as 2-digit multiplication. GPT-3 and LaMDA (Thoppilan al., 2022) have close-to-zero performance for several orders of magnitude of training compute, before performance jumps to sharply above random at 2 1022 training FLOPs (13B parameters) for GPT-3, and 2023 training FLOPs (68B parameters) for LaMDA. Similar emergent behavior also occurs al around the same model scale for other tasks, such as transliterating from the International Phonetic Alphabet (Figure 2B), recovering a word from its scrambled letters (Figure 2C), and Persian question-answering (Figure 2D). Even more emergent abilities from BIG-Bench are given in Appendix E.
TruthfulQA. Figure 2E shows few-shot prompted performance on the TruthfulQA benchmark, which measures the ability to answer questions truthfully (Lin et al., 2021). This benchmark is adversarially curated against GPT-3 models, which do not perform above random, even when scaled to the largest model size. Small Gopher models also do not perform above random until scaled up to the largest model of 5 102h training FLOPs (280B parameters), for which performance jumps to more than 20% above random (Rae et al., 2021).
Grounded conceptual mappings. Figure 2F shows the task of grounded conceptual mappings, where language models must learn to map a conceptual domain, such a cardinal direction, represented in a textual grid world (Patel & Pavlick, 2022). Again, performance only jumps to above random using the largest. GPT-3 model.
Multi-task language understanding. Figure 2G shows the Massive Multi-task Language Understanding (MMLU) benchmark, which aggregates 57 tests covering a range of topics including math, history, law, and more (Hendrycks al., 2021a). For GPT-3, Gopher, and Chinchilla, models of 102 training FLOPs (~10B parameters) or smaller do not perform better than guessing on average over all the topics, scaling up to 3-5 1023 training FLOPPs (70B-20 -800 parameters) enables performance to substantially surpass random. This result is striking because it could imply that the ability to solve knowledge-bese based questions spanning large collection of topics might require scaling up past this threshold (for dense language models without retrieval or access to external memory).
TThough GPT-3 popularized prompting, the task setup has existed since hefore GPT-3 (Trinh Le, 2018; McCann al., 2018; Radford al., 2019; Raffel al., 2020).
3

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
LaMDA
GPT-3
Gopher
Chinchilla
PaLM
Random
(A)
Mod. arithmetic
(B)
IPA transliterate
(C)
Word unscramble
DD) Persian QA
50
50
50
50
40
Exact match (%)
40
Exact match (%)
Accuracy (%)
30
30
30
30
BLEU
20
20
10
10
10
10
0-
0
1018
1020
1022
1024
1018
1020
1022
1024
10.8
1020
1022
1024
10
1020
1022
1024
(E) TruthfulQA
(F) Grounded mappings
(G) Multi-task NLU
(H)
Word context
70
70
70
70
60
60
60
60
Accuracy (%)
50
Accuracy (%)
50
Accuracy (%)
50
Accuracy (%)
50
40
40
40
30
30
30
30
20
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
0
0
1020
1022
1024
1020
1022
1024
1020
1022
1024
1020
1022
1024
Model scale (training FLOPs)
Figure 2: Eight examples of emergence in the few-shot prompting setting. Each point is separate model. The ability lo perform task via few-shot prompting is emergent when language model achieves random performance until a certain scale, after which performance significantly increases to well-above random. Note that models that used more training compute also typically have more saramcters-henee analogous figure with number of model parameters instead of training FLOPs as the x-axis Figure 11. A-D: BIG-Bench (2022), 2-shot. F: Lin et al. (2021) and Rae al. (2021). F: Patel & Pavlick (2022). G: Hendrycks et al. (2021a), Rae al. (2021), and Hoffmann et al. (2022). H: Brown et al. (2020), Hoffmann et al. (2022), and Chowdhery et al. (2022) on the WiC benchmark (Pilehvar & Camacho Collados,, 2019).
we show an
Word in Context. Finally, Figure 2H shows the Word in Context (WiC) benchmark (Pilehvar & Camacho- Collados, 2019), which is semantic understanding benchmark. Notably, GPT-3 and Chinchilla fail to achieve one-shot performance of better than random, even when scaled to their largest model size of ~5 1023 FLOPs. Although these results so far may suggest that scaling alone may not enable models to solve WiC, above-random performance eventually emerged when PaLM was scaled to 2.5- 10 FLOPs (540B parameters), which was much larger than GPT-3 and Chinchilla.
4 Augmented Prompting Strategies
Although few-shot prompting is perhaps currently the most common way of interacting with large language models, recent work has proposed several other prompting and finetuning strategies to further augment the abilitics of language models. If a technique shows no improvement or harmful when compared to the baseline of not using the technique until applied to model of a largo-enough scale, we also consider the technique an emergent ability.
4

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
(A) Math word problems
(B) Instruction
following
(C) 8-digit addition
% ECE (log-scale, decreasing)
(D) Calibration
GSM8K Accuracy (%)
10 NL.U task average
70
Tus't
100
Scratchpad
100
T/F
Chatn
thoughs
60
tuning
Accuracy (%)
80
60
50
No Instruction suning
10
40
choices
40
20
10a
chain. thought
scrateliad
30
10a1 10a2 1023
1024
10
10
1023
1024
1019
1020
10a1
1022
102a
1024
Model scale (training FLOPs)
Figure 3: Specialized prompting or finetuning methods can be emergent in that they do not have a positive effect until a certain model scale. A: Wei et al. (2022b). B: Wei et al. (2022a). C: Nye et al. (2021). D: Kadavath et al. (2022). An analogous figure with number of parameters on the r-axis instead of training FLOPs is given in Figure 12. The model shown in A-C is LaMDA (Thoppilan et al., 2022), and the model shown in D is from Authropic.
Multi-step reasoning. Reasoning tasks, especially those involving multiple steps, have been challenging for language models and NLP models more broadly (Rae et al., 2021; Bommasani et al., 2021; Nye et al., 2021). J. A recent prompting strategy called chain-of- tftinghf- prompting enables language models to solve such problems by guiding them to produce a sequence of intermediate steps before giving the final answer (Cobbe al., 2021; Wei al., 2022b; Zhou et al., 2022). As shown in Figure 3A, chain of thought prompting only surpasses standard prompting without intermediate steps when scaled to 1023 training FLOPs (~100B parameters). A similar emergence in performance gain was also observed when augmenting few-shot prompting with explanations that came after the final answer (Lampinen et al., 2022).
Instruction following. Another growing line of work aims better enable language models to perform new tasks simply by reading instructions describing the task (without few-shot exemplars). By finetuming mixture of tasks phrased as instructions, language models have been shown to respond appropriately unseen task (Ouyang et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022a; Sanh et al., 2022). As shown in Figure 3B, Wei et al. (2022a) found that this instruction-finctuing technique hurts performance for models of 7 10 training FLOPs (8B parameters) or smaller, and only improves performance when scaled to 1023 training FLOPs (~110B parameters) (though Sanh et al. (2022) found shortly after that this instruction-followii behavior could be also induced by finetuning smaller encoder-decoder T5 models).
to instructions describing
Program execution. Consider computational lasks involving multiple steps, such as adding large numbers executing computer programs. Nye et al. (2021) show that finetuning language models to predict intermediate outputs ("scratchpad"") enables them to successfully execute such multi-step computations. As shown in Figure 3C, on 8-digit addition, using a scratchpad only helps for models of ~9. 10 training FLOPs (40M parameters) or larger.
Model calibration. Finally, important direction for deployment of language models studies is calibration, which measures whether models can predict which questions they will be able to answer correctly. Kadavath el al. (2022) compared two ways of measuring calibration: a True/False technique, where models first propose answers and then evaluate the probability "P(True)" that their answers are correct, and more-standard methods of calibration, which use the probability of the correct answer compared with other answer options. As shown in Figure 3D, the superiority of the True/Fals technique only emerges when scaled to the largest model scale of ~3 1023 training FT.OPs (52B parameters).
5

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
Table 1: List of emergent abilities of large language models and the scale (both training FLOPs and number of model parameters) at which the abilitics emerge.
Emergent scale
Train. FLOPs Params.
Model
Reference
Few-shot prompting abilities
Addiitio//subrraction (3 digit)
2.3E++22
GPT-3
Brown et al. (2020)
Additiin//subtraction (4-5 digit)
3.1E+223
175B
MML.U Benchmark (57 topic avg.)
3.1E++23
175B
GPT-3
Hendrycks al. (2021a)
Toxicity classification (CivilComments)
1.3
7.1B
Gopher
Rae et al. (2021)
Truthfulness (Truthful QA)
5.0E+23
280B
MMLU Benchmark (26 topics)
5.0E+23
280B
Grounded conceptual mappings
3.1E+-23
175B
GPT-3
Patel & Pavlick (2022)
MMLU Benchmark (30 topics)
5.0E+-23
70B
Chinchilla
Hoffmann al. (2022)
Word in Context (WiC) benchmark
2.5E+24
540B
PaLM
Chowdhery et al. (2022)
Many BIG-Bench tasks (see Appendix E)
Many
Many
Many
BIG-Bench (2022)
Augmented prompting abilities
Iustruction following (finetuning)
1.3E++23
68B
FLAN
Wei et al. (2022a)
Scratchpad: 8-digit addition (finetuning)
8.9E+19
40M
LaMDA
Nye et al. (2021)
Using open-book knowledge for fact checking
1.3E+-22
7.1B
Gopher
Rae et al. (2021)
Chain of thought: Math word problems
1.3E++23
68B
LaMDA
Wei et al. (2022b)
Chain of thought: Strategy
2.9E+233
62B
PaLM
Chowdhery al. (2022)
Differentiable search index
3.3E+22
11B
T5
Tay et al. (2022)
consiteesy decoding
1.3E+23
LaMDA
Wang et al. (2022b)
Leveraging explanations in prompting
5,0E+23
280B
Gopher
Lampinen et al. (2022)
Least-to-most prompting
3.1E++23
175B
GPT-3
Zhou al. (2022)
Zero-shot chain of thought reasoning
3.1
175B
GPT-3
Kojima et al. (2022)
Calibration via P(True)
2.6E+223
52B
Authropic
Kadavath al. (2022)
5
Discussion
We have seen that a range of abilitics-in the few-shot prompting setup or otherwisc- thus far only been observed when evaluated on sufficiently large language model. Hence, their emergence cannot be predicted by simply extrapolating performance smaller-scale models. Emergent few-shot prompted tasks are also unpredictable in the sense that these tasks are not explicitly included in pre-training, and we likely do not know the full scope of few-shot prompted tasks that language models can perform. This raises the question of whether further scaling could potentially endow even-larger language models with new emergent abilities. Tasks that language models cannot currently do are prime candidates for future emergence; for instance, there are dozens of tasks BIG-Bench for which even the largest GPT-3 and PaLM models do not achieve above-random performance (see Appendix E.4).
The ability for scale to unpredictably enable new techniques is not just theoretical. Consider the Word in Context (WiC) benchmark (Pilchvar & Camacho-Collados, 2019) shown in Figure 2H, as a historical example. Here, scaling GPT-3 to around 3 1023 training FLOPs (175B parameters) failed to unlock above-random one-shot prompting performance. Regarding this negative result, Brown et al. (2020) cited the model architecture of GPT-3 or the use of an autoregressive language modeling objective (rather than using a denoising training objective) as potential reasons, and suggested training a model of comparable size with bidirectional architecture remedy. However, later work found that further scaling decoder-only language model actually enough to enable above-random performance
this task. As is shown in Figure 2H, scaling PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022) from 3 102s training FLOPs (62B parameters) to 3 1024 training FLOPs (540B parameters) led to significant jump in performance, without the significant architectural changes suggested by Brown et al. (2020).
3GPT- 3 does achieve slightly above-random performance the with few-shot instead of one-shot prompting (~55%), but this above-random performance did appear be a result scale and did not hold the server.

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
5.1 Potential explanations of emergence
Although there are dozens of examples of emergent abilities, there are currently few compelling explanations for why such abilitics emerge in the way they do. For certain tasks, there may be natural intuitions for why emergence requires model larger than particular threshold scale. For instance, if multi-step reasoning task requires | steps of sequential computation, this might require model with depth of at least O (!) layers. It is also reasonable to assume that more parameters and more training enable better memorization that could be helpful for tasks requiring world knowledge. 4 As an example, good performance on closed-book question-answering may require a model with enough parameters to capture the compressed knowledge base itself (though language model-based compressors can have higher compression ratios than conventional compressors (Bellard, 2021)).
It is also important to consider the evaluation metries used to measure emergent abilities (BIG-Bench, 2022). For instance, using exact string match as the evaluation metric for long-sequence targets may disguise compounding incremental improvements as emergence. Similar logic may apply for multi-step or arithmetic reasoning problems, where models are only scored on whether they get the final answer to a multi-step problem correct, without any credit given to partially correct solutions. However, the jump in final answer accuracy does not explain why the quality of intermediate steps suddenly emerges to above random, and using evaluation metrics that do not give partial credit are at best an incomplete explanation, because emergent abilities are still observed many classification tasks (c.g., the tasks in Figure 2D-H).
As an alternative evaluation, measure cross-entropy loss, which is used in scaling laws for pre-training, for the six emergent BIG-Bench tasks, as detailed in Appendix A. This analysis follows the same experimental setup from BIG-Bench (2022) and affirms their conclusions for the six emergent tasks we consider. Namely, cross-entropy loss improves even for small model scales where the downstream metrics (exact match, BLEU, and accuracy) are close to random and do not improve, which shows that improvements in the log-likelihoon of the target sequence can be masked by such downstream metries. However, this analysis does not explain why downstream metrics are emergent or enable us to predict the scale at which emergence occurs. Overall, more work is needed to tease apart what enables scale to unlock emergent abilities.
5.2 Beyond scaling
Although may observe emergent ability to occur at a certain scale, it is possible that the ability could be later achieved at smaller scale in other words, model scale is not the singular factor for unlocking an emergent ability. As the science of training large language models progresses, certain abilities may be unlocked for smaller models with new architectures, higher-quality data, or improved training procedures. For example, there are 14 BIG-Bench tasks for which LaMDA 137B and GPT-3 175B models perform at near-random, but PaLM 62B in fact achieves above-random performance, despite having fewer model parameters and training FLOPs. While there is not an empirical study ablating every difference between PaLM 62B and prior models (the computational cost would be too high), potential reasons for the better performance of PaLM could include high-quality training data (e.g,, more multilingual and code data than LaMDA) and architectural differences (e.g., split digit-encodings; see Section 2 in Chowdhery et al. (2022)).
Morcover, once an ability is discovered, further research may make the ability available for smaller scale models. Consider the nascent direction of enabling language models to follow natural language instructions describing a task (Wei et al., 2022a; Sanh et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022, inter alia). Although Wei et al. (2022a) initially found that instruction-based finetuning only worked for 68B parameter or larger decoder-only models, Sanh et al. (2022) induced similar bchavior in 11B model with encoder-docoder architecture, which typically has higher performance after finetuning than decoder-only architect ures (Wang et al., 2022a). As another example, Ouyang et al. (2022) proposed a finetuning and reinforcement learning from human feedback approach for the InstructGPT models, which enabled a 1.3B model to outperform much larger models in human-rater evaluations on a broad set of use cases.
"Though note that encoding world knowlodge in parameters is just one approach; there are others (c.g., Cuu et al., 2020; Rorgeaud et al., 2021). TThese tasks are enumerated in Appendix F.
7

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
There has also been work on improving the general few-shot prompting abilities of language models (Gao et al., 2021; Schick & Schütze, 2021, inter alia). Theoretical and interpretability research (Wei et al., 2021a; Saunshi et al., 2021) on why a language modeling objective facilitates certain downstream behavior could in turn have implications on how to enable emergence beyond simply scaling. For instance, certain features of pre-training data (e.g., long-range coherence, having many rare classes) have also been shown to correlate with emergent few-shot prompting and could potentially enable it in smaller models (Xie et al., 2022; Chan et al., 2022), and few-shot learning can require certain model architeclures in some scenarios (Chan et al., 2022). Computational linguistics work has further shown how threshold frequencies of training data can activate emergent syntactic rule-learning when model parameters and training FLOPs are held constant (Wei et al., 2021b), which has even been shown to have striking "aha" moments similar to those in the psycholinguistics literature (Abend et. al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2021). As we continue to train ever-larger language models, lowering the scale threshold for emergent abilities will become more important for making research on such abilitics available to the community more broadly (Bommasani et al., 2021; Ganguli al., 2022; Liang et al., 2022).
Naturally, there are limitations to program consisting only of increasing scale (training compute, model paramcters, and dataset size). For instance, scaling may eventually be bottle-nccked by hardware constraints, and some abilities may not have emerged at this point. Other abilities may never emerge- for instance, tasks that are far out of the distribution of even a very large training dataset might. not ever achieve any significant. performance. Finally, an ability could emerge and then plateau; in other words, there is no guarantee that scaling enables an ability to reach the desired level.
5.3 Another view of emergence
While scale (e.g., training FLOPs or model parameters) has been highly correlated with language model performance on many downstream metrics so far, scale need not be the only lens to view emergent abilities. For example, the emergence of task-specific abilities can be analyzed as a function of the language model's perplexity on a general text corpus such as Wiki'Text 103 (Merity et al., 2016). Figure 4 shows such a plot with WikiTeext003 perplexity of the language model on the z-axis and performance on the MMLU benchmark on the y-axis, side-by-side with plots of training FLOPs and model parameters on the a-axis.
Because WikiTText03 perplexity and training FLOPs happen to be highly correlated for the models considered here (Gopher and Chinchilla), the plots of emergent abilitics look similar for both. However, this correlation between Wik perplexity and scale may not hold in the future as new techniques beyond vanilla dense Transformer models are developed (e.g., retrieval- augmented models may have strong WikiText108 perplexity with less training compute and fewer model paramcters (Borgeaud et al., 2021)). Also note that using WikiTexxt03 perplexity to compare across model families can be complicated due to factors such as differences training data composition. Overall, emergent abilities should probably be viewed as a function of many correlated variables.
5.4 Emergent risks
Importantly, similar to how emergent abilities have been observed in the few-shot prompting setting without explicitly being included in pre-training, risks could also emerge (Bommasani et al., 2021; Steinhardt, 2021; Ganguli et al., 2022). For instance, societal risks of large language models such as truthfulness, bias, and toxicity are a growing area of research (Weidinger et al., 2021). Such risks are important considerations whether or not they can be precisely characterized as "emergent." based on the definition in $2, and, in some scenarios, do increase with model scale (sce the Inverse Scaling Prize"). Since work on emergent abilitics incentivizes scaling language models, it is important to be aware of risks that increase with model scale even if they are not emergent.
Here, we summarize several prior findings on the relationship between specific social risks and model scale. On WinoGender (Rudinger el al., 2017), which measures gender bias in occupations such as "nurse" or "electrician," " scaling has improved performance so far (Du et al., 2021; Chowdhery et al., 2022), though
Phesps://githon com/ inverse soal ing/prize
8

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
Training compute vs.
WikiText103 ppl vs.
10k ppl vs. model size
model size
training compute
Training FLOPs
1021
WikiText 103 ppl
5
Wile ppl
1023
7
10
10
1023
15
15
10
20
20
1B
10B 100B
10a0
10aa
1024
1B
10B 100B
Model parameters
Training FLOPs
Model parameters
MMLU
MMLU
MMLU
100
100
100
Accuracy (%)
Accuracy (%)
Accuracy (%)
80
60
60
60
40
40
40
20
0
10a0
10
10
1B
10B 100B
20
15
10
5
Training FLOPs
Model parameters
WikiText103 ppl
Chinchilla
Copher
Random
Figure 4: Top row: the relationships between training FLOPs, model parameters, and perplexity (ppl) on WikiText108 103 (Merity et al., 2016) for Chinchilla and Gopher. Bottom row: Overall performance on the massively multi-task language understanding benchmark (MMLU; Hendrycks et al., 2021a) as a function of training FLOPs, model parameters, and WikiText103 perplexity.
BIG-Bench (2022) found in BBQ bias benchmark (Parrish el al., 2022) that bias can increase with scaling for ambiguous contexts. As for toxicity, Askell et al. (2021) found that while larger language models could produce dataset (Gehman et al., 2020), this behavior could be mitigated by giving models prompts with examples of being "helpful, harmless, and honest." For extracting training data from language models, larger models were found be more likely memorize training data (Carlini al., 2021; 2022), though deduplication methods have been proposed and can simultaneously reduce memorization while improving performance (Kandpal et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2022a). The TruthfulQA benchmark (Lin et al., 2021) showed that GPT-3 models were more likely to mimic human falsehoods they got larger, though Rac et al. (2021) later showed on multiple-choice version that scaling Gopher to 280B enabled emergent performance substantially better than random.
more toxic responses from the RealToxieityPrompp
Beyond the above, emergent risks also include phenomena that might only exist in future language models or that have not yet been characterized in current language models. Some such behaviors, as discussed in detail in Hendrycks et al. (2021b), could be backdoor vulnerabilities, inadvertent deception, or harmful content synthesis. Approaches involving data filtering, forecasting, governance, and automatically discovering harmful behaviors have been proposed for discovering and mitigating emergent risks (Bender et al., 2021; Weidinger et al., 2021; Steinhardt, 2021; Ganguli et al., 2022; Perez et al., 2022, inter alia). For a more detailed discussion the risks of large language models, including emergent risks, see Bender et al. (2021); Steinhardt (2021); Bommasani et al. (2021); Ganguli et al. (2022).
5.5 Sociological changes
Finally, the emergent abilities discussed here focus on model behavior and are just one of several types of emergence NLP (Manning et al., 2020; Teehan et al., 2022). Another notable type of qualitative change is sociological, in which increasing scale has shifted how the community views and uses language models. For instance, NLP has historically focused on task-specific models (Jurafsky & Martin, 2009). Recently, scaling has led to an explosion in research on and development of models that "general purpose" in that they are
9

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
single models that aim to perform range of tasks not explicitly encoded in the training data (e.g., GPT-3, Chinchilla, and PaIM) (Manning, 2022).
One key set of results in the emergent sociological shift towards general-purpose models is when scaling enables a few-shot prompted general-purpose model to outperform prior state of the art held by finetuned task-specific models. As a few examples, GPT-3 175B achieved new state of the art on the TriviaQA and PiQA qnestion-answering benchmarks (Brown al., 2020); PaLM 540B achieved new state of the art on three arithmetic reasoning benchmarks ( (Chowdhery et al., 2022); and the multimodal Flamingo 80B model achieved state of the art on six visual question answering benchmarks (Alayrac et al., 2022). In all of these cases, statc-of-tho-art performance was achieved by few-shot prompting a language model of unprecendented scale (scaling curves for these examples are shown in Appendix Figure 13). These abilities are not necessarily emergent since they have smooth, predictable scaling curves- however, they do underscore an emergent sociological shift towards general-purpose models the NI.P community.
The ability for general-purpose models to perform unseen tasks given only few examples has also led to many new applications of language models outside the NLP research community. For instance, language models have been used via prompting to translate natural language instructions into actions executable by robots (Ahn et al., 2022; Huang et al., 2022), interact with users (Coenen et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021; 2022a; Lee et al., 2022b), and facilitate multi-modal reasoning (Zeng et al., 2022; Alayrac et al., 2022). Large language models have also been deployed in the real-world both in products, such as GitHub CoPilot," and directly as services themselves, such as OpenAl's GPT-3 API.
5.6 Directions for future work
Future work on emergent abilities could involve train more-capable language models, well as methods for better enabling language models to perform tasks. Some potential directions include but are not limited to the following.
Further model scaling. Further scaling up models has so far appeared to increase the capabilities of language models, and is a straightforward direction for future work. However, simply scaling up language models is computationally expensive and requires solving substantial hardware challenges, and so other approaches will likely play key role in the future of the emergent abilities of large language models.
Improved model architectures and training. Improving model architecture and training procedures may facilitate high-quality models with emergent abilities while mitigating computational cost. One direction is using sparse mixture-of-experts architectures (Tepikhin et al., 2021; Fedus et al., 2021; Artetxe al., 2021; Zoph et al., 2022), which scale up the number of parameters in a model while maintaining constant computational costs for an input. Other directions for better computational efficiency could involve variable amounts of compute for different inputs (Graves, 2016; Dehghani et al., 2018), using more localized learning strategics than backpropagation through all weights in a neural network (Jaderberg et al., 2017), and augmenting models with external memory (Guu et al., 2020; Borgeaud et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2022b, inter alia). These nascent directions have already shown promise in many settings but have not yet seen widespread adoption, which will likely require further work.
Data scaling. Training long enough on large-enough dataset has been shown to be key for the ability of language models to acquire syntactie, semantic, and other world knowledge (Zhang et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2021b; Razeghi et al., 2022). Recently, Holfmann et al. (2022) argued that prior work (Kaplan et al., 2020) underestinated the amount of training data needed to train a compute-optinal model, underscoring the importance of training data. Collecting large datasets so that models can be trained for longer could allow a greater range of emergent abilities under a fixed model size constraint.
Better techniques for and understanding of prompting. Although few-shot prompting (Brown el al., 2020) is simple and effective, general improvements to prompting may further expand the abilities of language models. For instance, simple modifications such as calibrating output probabilitics (Zhao et al., 2021;
/nttps::/copplot. http://pppoot..hhhbbb... .github. cca/ 8 Phttpss//bbta openaat wwwp//oss///ooooooooooooooosoceo in
10

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
Holtzman et al., 2021) using noisy channel (Min al., 2021) have improved performance range of tasks. Augmenting few-shot exemplars with intermediate steps (Reynolds & McDonell, 2021; Nye et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2022b) has also enabled models to perform multi-step reasoning tasks not possible in the standard prompting formulation from Brown et al. (2020). Morcover, better exploration of what makes prompting successful (Wei et al., 2021a; Xie et al., 2022; Min al., 2022; Olsson et al., 2022) could lead insights on how to elicit emergent abilities at smaller model scale. Sufficient understanding of why models work generally lags the development and popularization of techniques such few-shot prompting, and it is also likely that the best practices for prompting will change as more-powerful models are developed over time.
Frontier tasks. Although language models can perform a wide range of tasks, there are still many tasks that even the largest language models to date cannot. perform with above-random accuracy. Dozens such tasks from BIG-Bench are enumerated in Appendix E.4; these tasks often involve abstract reasoning (e.g., playing Chess, challenging math, etc). Future research could potentially investigate why these abilities have not yet emerged, and how to enable models perform these tasks. Looking forward, another growing direction could be multilingual emergenee; results on multilingual BIG-Bench tasks indicate that both model scale and training data play a role in emergence (e.g,, Figure 2D shows that both using PaLM's training dalaset and scaling to 62B parameters is required for question-answering in Persian). Other frontier tasks could include prompting in multiple modalities (Alayrac et al., 2022; Ramesh et al., 2022).
Understanding emergence. Beyond research on unlocking further emergent tasks, an important open question for future research is how and why emergent abilities occur in large language models. In this paper, we conducted initial analyses regarding scaling of the cross-entropy loss on BIG-Bence (Appendix A.1), different metrics for generative tasks (Appendix A.2), and for which types of tasks emergence occurs (Appendix A.3 and Appendix B). These analyses did not provide complete answers to why emergence occurs or how to predict it. Future research could polentially analyze emergence in new ways (e.g.. analyze the relationship between ween emergent tasks and similar data in training; create a synthetic task that requires multiple compositional sub-tasks and evaluate how each of those sub-tasks improve with scale and unlock emergence when combined). Overall, understanding emergence an important direction because could potentially allow us predict what abilities future models may have, well provide new insights into how to train more-capable language models.
6 Conclusions
We have discussed emergent abilities of language models, for which meaningful performance has only been thus far observed at certain computational scale. Emergent abilities can span variety of language models, task types, and experimental scenarios. Such abilities are a recently discovered outcome of scaling up language models, and the questions of how they emerge and whether more scaling will enable further emergent abilities seem to be important future research directions for the field of NLP.
Broader Impact Statement
In this paper, we surveyed results in the existing literature, without proposing new methods or models. As discussed in ($5), emergent abilities are unpredictable in several ways, and include emergent risks ($5.4). We believe these phenomena warrant careful study and raise important questions for the field.
Acknowledgments
We thank Charles Sutton, Slav Petrov, Douglas Eck, Jason Freidenfelds, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Ethan Dyer, Dale Schuurmans, and Xavier Garcia for useful discussions and feedback on the manuscript.
11

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
References
Omri Abend, Tom Kwiatkowski, Nathaniel Smith, Sharon Goldwater, and Mark Steodman. Bootstrapping language acquisition. Cognition, 164:116 143, 2017. URL
inf. wad.ed..c.. ac. uk.uk/
sgwaterr/papers/cognn 7ttt:ttttoottttttttssrrppppppp -d.
Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yevgen Chebotar, Omar Cortes, Byron David, Chelsea Finn, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, Alex Herzog, et al. Do as can, not as I say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. arXiv preprint orXtv:2244.01691, 2022. URL https: /ttpss:///xxvvvv///
00ss/2204.01222
Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, lain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Monsch, Katic Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, et al. Flamingo: visual language model for few-shot learning. Xiv preprint arXiv:2204.1 14 198, 2022. URL https: //ap:s///rxiv... org/ abs /2044.22... . 14198.
Philip W. Anderson. More is different: Broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science. Seience, 177(4047):393 396, 1972. URL http://wwwz lanais famaf unc. edu..edu... www.:edd..rreereee attttusos/////////aa// pdf.
em emm/Arrerroon-ooreeffffeeeeeee
Mikel Arletxe, Shruti Bhosale, Naman Goyal, Todor Mihaylov, Myle Ou, Sam Shleifer, Xi Victoria Lin, Jingfei Du, Srinivasan lyer, Ramakanth Pasunuru, et al. Efficient large scale language modeling with mixtures of experts. arxiv preprint arXio:2112 10684, 2021. URL https: /ttp///axvvvvvva///v///////..avl wttg/bs///////a// /at.../21.....1.. 10684.
Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Anna Chen, Dawn Drain, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, Andy Jones, Nicholas Joseph, Ben Mann, Nova DasSarma, et al. general language assistant as a laboratory for alignment. arXiv preprint Xix:2211 12021122.00,1,, 2021. URL
00861.
Fabrice Bellard, gpt2tc: Text completion and compression using GPT-2, 2021. URL https: / /bbllard. otg/Linnc/gp:2tc..tt html. Accessed Apr. 26, 2022.
Emily M. Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina SaMillan-MMjor and Shmargaret Shmitchell. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 2021. URL https: d11 acm. org http://////..///........//////// 3445922.
BIG-Bench. Beyond the imitation game: Measuring and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206. 04615, 2022. URL
2206 04615.
Rishi Bommasani, Drew A. Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S. Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, et al. On the opportunities and risks foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:210s.0728 07258, 2021. URL 07258.
org/ abs/2108.
Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George van den Driessche, Jean- Maan-Baptstte Lespiau, Bogdan Damoe, Aidan Clark, et al. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. arXiv preprint 2xXi:2112.04422 2021. URL https:
/ l/arxiv.org wrw. ablg//ab///e / 04426.
Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D. Kaplan, Prafulla Dhari- wal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language mod- els are few-shot learners. NewrIPS, 2020. URL https::/ppppers Abstract .htal..t..mmm..................t html.
cc/ppaper/220//aat))
Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramer, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert- Voss, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Tom Brown, Dawn Song. Ulfar Erlingsson, et al. Extracting training data from large language mod- cls. USENIX Security, 2021. URL https://www usenix wwwpnnii..rrr/eogoooomooo wwtppiwwwww.goooooeeeeeeeeeeeeee conf//enceeeecccccceoeeeoe wttpeeeeneeeeeenieeertttttt/ presentation/cart ini -extracting..
12

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
Nicholas Carlini, Daphne Ippolito, Matthew Jagielski, Katherine Lee, Florian Tramer, and Chiyuan Zhang. Quantifying memorization across neural language models. arxiv preprint or arXiv:2202.0704 2022. URL
Stephanie C.Y. Chan, Adam Santoro, Andrew K. Lampinen, Jane X. Wang, Aaditya Singh, Pierre H. Richemond, Jay McClelland, and Felix Hill. Data distributional propertics drive emergent few-shot learning in transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.05055 2022. URL
wwwooo/aaaooo abs/aaa...... 05055.
Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, et al. PaLM: Scaling language modeling with Pathways. arXiv preprint arXii:22044.020 02311, 2022. URL https: /awpiv.xvvv/v.///////////////a org/ abs 2204.0231..
Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Jacob Hilton, Reiichio Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXic preprint arXiv:2110. 14.1110..114168. 2021. URL
ottp/////rg//b///////// 141.6. 14168.
Andy Coenen, Luke Davis, Daphne Ippolito, Emily Reif, and Ann Yuan. Wordcraft: A human-Al collaborative editor for story writing, arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.074300 2021. URL https://arxiv: org/ hbtp///b////// ab2r2177 2107.
07430.
Antonella Corradini and Timothy O'Connor. Emergence in science and philosophy, volume 6. Rout- ledge, 2010. URL https://books:
http:////oooooo/eeeeeeeaaaaaaaa. arXiv preprint arXix:1807.033: 03819, 2018. URL htt.://wwc...ocoooooooooooooooea otw.aotcso_sooootttaeeeeeaaaaaaa
Mostafa. Dehghani, Stephan Gouws, Oriol Vinyals, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Lukasz Kaiser. Universal transformers.
Jacob Devlin, Ming-Was Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirec- tional transformers for language understanding. NAACL, 2019. URL httts:://cclattholloo org/
119-14233
Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Andrew M. Dai, Simon Tong, Dmitry Lepikhin, Yuanzhong Xu, Maxim Krikun, Yanqi Zhou, Adams Wei Yu, Orhan Firat, et al. GLaM: Efficient scaling of language models with mixture- of-experts. arXiv preprint 1rxi:22122066055 2021. URL /atts::/arrxs
William Fedus, Barret Zoph, and Noam Shazeer. Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity. arXiv preprint arXiw:2101.032 003661, 2021. URL https://arxiv..r
03961.
Stephanie Forrest. Emergent computation: Self-organizing, collective, and cooperative phenomena in natural and artificial computing networks. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 42(1-3):1111, 1990. URL
fattps:/vvee http///wwww/e//// www.escieenee wcwencedirecct. wtt.c////ccc..o http:////....na/ttttt///////////
Deep Ganguli, Danny Hernandez, Liane Lovitt, Nova DasSarma, Tom Henighan, Andy Jones, Nicholas Joseph, Jackson Kernion, Ben Mann, Amanda. Askell, et al. Predictability and surprise in large generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07788 2022. URL https: http://xxxvvv.ro/ org/ http:/iwv.rrgabb/////o/
Tianyu Gao, Adam Fisch, and Danqi Chen. Making pre-trained language models better few-shot learners. ACL, 2021. doi: 10.18653/vv /v1 /22/22222ccccc long..9...229., URL https: http://aaaaannnotc..a..aa http://222.acccoonne 295.
10.18653/v1/2021.ooo
Samuel Gehman, Suchin Gururangan, Maarten Sap, Yejin Choi, and Noah A. Smith. MaalToxiittPPromptt Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models. In Findings of EMNLP, 2020. doi: 10.18653/v1/ 2020.finding 1e2..findinss-emlpp.33 URL https: http//aalaanttt wrg.gg....//0... findings-emnll......
Alex Graves. Adaptive computation time for recurrent neural networks. arXiv preprint arXic:1603.08983, 2016. URL https: http/axxivvvoroaaa /ttp://toroo/////////// 08983.
Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Ming- Wei Chang. REALM: Retrieval-angmented language model pre-training. TCML, 2020. URL httpp:://arxvv.org//////// wttp://wwww...o//////////.22 08909.
13

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
David A. Harper and Paul A. Lewis. New perspectives emergence in economics. New Per-
sciencedi rect. www.aagwww....a..........oooooan
spectives on Emergence in Ecomomics, pp- 2-3, 2012. URL https://ww..cieeneed com/
Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. ICLR, 2021a. URL forum?id=d7kB jmI 3CmQ.
Dan Hendrycks, Nicholas Carlini, John Schulman, and Jacob Steinhardt. Unsolved problems in ML safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109. 13916, 2021b. URL https:: htttts://arxiv..oo wtt.or///aaa///////999
Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, et al. Training compute-optimal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203. 15556, 2022. URL https://arxits httpaawwwww..r///////222.. 15556.
Ari Holtzman, Peter West, Vered Shwartz, Yejin Choi, and Luke Zeltlemoyer. Surface form competition: Why the highest probability answer isn't always right. EMNLP, 2021. URL fttt::::/aallanhhloogg// org/2021. emnlp- www.eemmin.neeeeeeeee.m m64n.564.
Wenlong Huang, Pieter Abbeel, Deepak Pathak, and Igor Mordatch. Language models as zero-shot planners:
Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.07207, 2022. URL
https: /ttp://///xiv..// http:////axx....orppp//200000000
Bernardo A. Huberman and Tad Hogg. Phase transitions in artificial intelligence systems. Artificial
Intelligence, 33(2):155-174 1987. URL https://ww/ http://wwwwiennndeeeeeeeeec coom//cience/articll
abs/ abbs/pl1/000047727790555
Harold Y. Hwang, Yoh Iwasa, Masashi Kawasaki, Bernhard Keimer, Naoto Nagaosa, and Yoshinori Tokura. Emergent phenomena at oxide interfaces. Nature Materials, 11(2):103-111 2012. URL https: /www.
nature. wtt./////attteeeeeeeeeeeemeeeeee httee//mmmatt...3...
Max Jaderberg, Wojciech Marian Czarnecki, Simon Osindero, Oriol Vinyals, Alex Graves, David Silver, and Koray Kavukcuoglu. Decoupled neural interfaces using synthetic gradients. ICML, 2017. URL
https::/arxtee org/ abs/ 608 05343.
Dan Jurafsky and James H. Martin. Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Compulational Linguistics, and Speech, Recognition. Prentice Hall series Artificial Intelligence. Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009. ISBN 9780131873216. URL https: /ttok//ook////////////////////s/ borookks.goollle google..ooooooooooooooooo www/book. ?id
5UNKKAXC
Saurav Kadavath, Tom Conerly, Amanda Askell, Tom Henighan, Dawn Drain, Ethan Perez, Nicholas Schiefer, Zac Hatfield Dodds, Nova DasSarma, Eli Tran-Johnson, al. Language models (mostly) know what they know. arXiv preprint arXin:2207.05221 2022. URL https://arxiv/:
abs///b///////// 2207 05221.
Nikhil Kandpal, Eric Wallace, and Colin Raffel. Deduplicating training data mitigates privacy risks in language models. anXiv preprint wxXi:22222006333 2022. URL
httpaaaiwiv...aaaaaaa/aa http:///gg/////////.e 06539.
Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXi::2001.08361 2020. URL https:// hetps://arxivv.org abs/2001 08361.
Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.11916 2022. URL https: //arxiv... org/ abs/2205, 11966.
14

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
Andrew K. Lampinen, Ishita Dasgupta, Stephanie C.Y. Chan, Kory Matthewson, Michael Henry Tessler, Antonia Creswell, James L. McClelland, Jane X. Wang, and Felix Hill. Can language models learn from explanations in context? arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.0280 02329, 2022. URL
2204.02329.
Katherine Lee, Daphne Ippolito, Andrew Nystrom, Chiyuan Zhang, Douglas Eck, Chris Callison-Burch, and Nicholas Carlini. Deduplicating training data makes language models better. ACL, 2022a. URL https: / arxiv. hww.voorg/aaa ats//bbs/2210 /210.. 06499.
Mina Lee, Perey Liang, and Qian Yang. Coauthor: Designing a human-AI collaborative writing datasct for exploring language model capabilities. CHI, 2022b. CRL https: //tp//aaavvv//ee//e///eeeeaaaeva http//aiiii.g/aaaaaa///////r/sat absg///b//// 0ttp//221..070
Dmitry Lepikhin, HyoukJoong Lee, Yuanzhong Xu, Dehao Chen, Orhan Firat, Yanping Huang, Maxim
Krikun, Noam Shazeer, and Zhifeng Chen. Gshard: Scaling giant models with conditional computation and automatic sharding. ICLR, 2021. URL https: www.reviww..ete......... www.:nee/frrroi wttp://rmmmmmidgeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 7XHTmbb.
Percy Liang, Semi-supervised learning for natural language. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2005. URL https:/ www.w/wwcsscccccoowwo cs. stanford.. wwtp:eeedddppaaaaeeeeeeeeeeaaaaa wwwpppppannnnsn//ppppppppppppaep paappessmeete pwwpersmmeg-tteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee meng-thesinttttsssseee pdf.
Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Kathleen A. Croel, and Rob Reich. The time is now to develop community
norms for the release of foundation models, 2022. URL https: htwpt:ttttfffiiiieeeeeeeeee //crfm...//////////////////// wtt.nfoordeeu/2222///0000 Community-non
html.
Stephanic Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. TruthfulQA: Mcasuring how models mimic human falschoods. arXiv preprint Ni:2209907955 2021. URL bettps://arxiv.orrgg 07955
Christopher D. Manning. Human language understanding & reasoning. Daedaluus 151( 138, 2022. URL https: / wwww. amacad. http:///...ooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Christopher D. Manning, Kevin Clark, John Hewitt, Urvashi Khandclwal, and Omer Levy. Emergent linguistic utructure in artificial neural networks trained by self-supervision Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (7(48))3004633005 2020. URL https: www.. .orgss..g//oooo //.///.i/11..000011 1073/ pnas.
1907367117.
Bryan McCann, Nitish Shirish Keskar, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. The natural language decathlon: Multitask learning as question answering. arXiv preprint arXiu:1866.cm 08730, 2018. URL https: arxiv. org/abst 0tt///8866007700
Stephen Merity, Caiming Xiong, James Bradbury, and Richard Socher. Pointer sentinel mixture models, 2016. wwiittext.
URL httph:tp/////. http///ggggggcc..eeeoooooo cttcc/////aaa /
Scott Miller, Jethran Guinness, and Alex Zamanian. Name tagging with word clusters and discriminative training. In NAACL, 2004. URL https: http:////aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa wwwg///-/10000 1043.
Sewon Min, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Noisy channel language model prompting for few-shot text classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108. 04.00,01000 2021. URL https://arxiv .rgg abs/ 2108. 04106.
Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettle- moyer. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? arXiv preprint 2r02 1080022128897 12837, 2022. URL https://arxivv
abs/ 2200222022222 2222222227........
Maxwell Nye, Anders Johan Andreassen, Guy Gur-Ari, Henryk Michalewski, Jacob Austin, David Bieber, David Dohan, Aitor Lewkowycz, Maarten Bosma, David Luan, et al. Show your work: Scratchpads for intermediate computation with language models. arXie preprint 2rXin:2112.00111 2021. URL
https://openrevieet http://wwwweeettoooomiiidideeeee
Catherine Olsson, Nelson Elhage, Neel Nanda, Nicholas Joseph, Nova DasSarma, Tom Henighan, et al. In-context learning and induction heads. Transformer Cireuits, 2022. URL https: / arransformeecircuuttt. htwp:///eoneeeeoooooooooaaaaaaaa i index. html.
15

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.0211
2022. URL https://axxiv.org//////oo/ wttp:/ggg/bb.....aa///// 02155.
Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In ACL, 2002. URL https: attes://aclantthooogg wttp//lyy...gg/2-111001 pdf.
Alicia Parrish, Angelica Chen, Nikita Nangia, Vishakh Padmakumar, Jason Phang, Jana Thompson, Phu Mon Htut, and Samuel Bowman. BBQ: A hand-built bias benchmark for question answering. In Findings of ACL, 2022. URL https: /tts:v//axxvv.oo org/ atss//10... 08193.
Roma Patel and Ellie Pavlick. Mapping language models to grounded conceptual spaces. ICLR, 2022. URL arXiv:2203.03980 2022. URL degp:/orr
wpt.//veenreeeeeeeeeeeeee petpss:/openrrviie..o https:/
net/
Ethan Perez, Saffron Huang, Francis Song, Trevor Cai, Roman Ring, John Aslanides, Amelia Glaese, Nat McAleese, and Geolfrey Irving. Red teaming language models with language models. ar preprinl.
http://o///b////2223336/./ 03286.
Mohammad Taher Pilehvar and Jose Gamacho-Colladoor WIC: the word-in-context dataset for evaluat- ing context-sensitive mcaning representations. NAACL, 2019. URL https: .org/ N19-1128.
Alec Radford, Jelfrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Tlya Sulskever, et al. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAl blog, 1(8), 2019. URL
https: http:::///lmucfpssyyy... http://wwwwkks.....o.f.........e cloudf cocoottntt//eeee wwt. /bettereteeeteeee oagere/eeeeeteeeeeeeeeeeeaaeeeee http://ttteee.guuuueeooo///////e are bee__usspprrriisee_mmttteeeeeeee laaieedddmmlttttttaeteeea wew.skeeeennerseeeee...
Jack W. Rae, Sebastian Borgeand, Trevor Cai, Katie Millican, Jordan Hoffmann, Francis Song, John Aslanides, Sarah Henderson, Roman Ring, Susannah Young, et al. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training Gopher. arXie preprint 1xXi:2112.114444 2021. URL https://arxiv.ort abs/
2112.11446 11446.
Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unifted text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2020. URL https: jmlr. org http//ppppsss//pp..p
html.
Aditya Ramesh, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alex Nichol, Cascy Chu, and Mark Chen. Hicrarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents. arXie preprinl orXin:2204.06120 2022. URL patpss//arxiin /ttp://///xvv.o/////// abs/2204 06125.
Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L Logan IV, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. Impact of pretraining term frequencies on few-shot reasoning. arXiv preprint orXiv:2202.072 072006 2022. URL https://arxiv..r abs/ abs/2202.07205
Laria Reynolds and Kyle McDonell. Prompt programming for large language models: Beyond the few-shot paradigm. Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2021. URL
org/ 2tbbs//212.073555
Rachel Rudinger, Chandler May, and Benjamin Van Durme. Social bias in clicited natural language inferences. In Proceedings of the First ACL Workshop on Ethics in Natural Language Processing, 2017.
URL httpt:tpp//. http://aaaaattia ogy- www.ogg..ooooooooooooooooooooooo wwwoooggg///.........o.ooo 1-1171660 669.
Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, et al. Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization. ICLR, 2022. URL https: http::///eeeeaeeeee..eee///ccoos
Nikunj Saunshi, Sadhika Malladi, and Sanjeev Arora. A mathematical exploration of why language models help solve downstream tasks. ICLR, 2021. URL https://anxiv..rr//bb///// 03648
16

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. It's not just size that matters: Small language models also few-shot learners. NAACL, June 2021. URL https://acll lny.alaogooooorggoooooooo
naacc -ma ieaaiin.. 185.
Jacob Steinhardt. models, October
On
the risks of
emergent behavior in foundation URL https: /top:://boundddeeee -on-roor-----uuuttiioo www.oooooooooo.ooooooooooooo Accessed Apr 13, 2022.
2021.
ghost. io/
ghost. on-th 2022.
Jacob Steinhardt. Future ml systems will be qualitatively different, 2022. URL https:
htt.httts://bbudeee /bto///oddddeeeeee regret. wwwwwwwlll-------------ww-- bellbbee--e bealitttiieelyddiffeee
Accessed May 20,
Yi Tay, Vinh Q. Tran, Mostafa Dehghani, Jianmo Ni, Dara Bahri, Harsh Mehta, Zhen Qin, Kai Hui, Zhe Zhao, Jai Gupta, al. Transformer memory as differentiable search index. Xiv preprint ar arXiv:2202.0690 2022. URL http:://///axx
220. 06991.
Ryan Techan, Miruna Clinciu, Oleg Serikov, Eliza Szezechla, Natasha Seelam, Shachar Mirkin, and Aaron Gokaslan. Emergent structures and training dynamics in large language models. In ACL Big Science Workshop, 2022. URL https: https: http::////aaaathhoooooooo
org/2022 bigscience-1..11.
Romal Thoppilan, Daniel De Freitas, Jamie Hall, Noam Shazeer, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Heng- Heng-Tze Cheng, Alicia Jin, Taylor Bos, Leslie Baker, Yu Du, et. al. LaMDA: Language models for dialog applications. arXiv preprint trXit:2201.08239 2022. URL https:: http//raxivv../ org/ /abs 211./221..0000 08239.
Trieu H. Trinh and Quoc V. Le. simple method for commonsense reasoning, arXie preprint arXiv:1806.02847 2018. URL https: /twpiv.vvivv/////////e/////aaava http//aaxvvvvvoxaaaaaaa /186. 02647.
Thomas Wang, Adam Roberts, Daniel Hesslow, Teven Le Scao, Hyung Won Chung, Iz Beltagy, Julien Launay, and Colin Raffel. What language model architecture and pretraining objective work best for zero-shot generalization? arXiv preprint rxXf:2204.058922 2022a. URL https: http://axxvvvvo/ org /tlbs/2224 05832.
Xuezhí Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Lc, Ed Chi, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. or arXiv preprinl Xii:2203.111711, 2022b. URL https:
//arxiv.
Colin Wei, Sang Michael Xie, and Tengyu Ma. Why do pretrained language models help in downstream tasks? An analysis of head and prompt tuning. NewrIPS, 2021a. URL h /oppnr/veeeer.ww....mmmmmmmm net/ forum? MDMMMW2XXCb
Jason Wei, Dan Garrette, Tal Linzen, and Ellie Pavlick. Frequency effects on syntactic rule learning in transformers. EMNLP, 2021b. doi: 10. (1186353v1/200 10021..mmlpmmaii m2.n.72. URL www.e-main.n1
org/2021. 2ttg/2221.emnlpmmaaae
Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Gun, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V. Le. Finetuned language models zero-shot learners. ICLR, 2022a. URL https: / ///ppeneevww..nee//eeeeeeeeeeeee
Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoe Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint 1rXiv:2201.11900 2022b.
URL https://aaaaa /ttpss///axxvv.oo/ org/ abs/ 20bo//200 2201. 11903.
Laura Weidinger, John Mellor, Maribeth Rauh, Conor Griffin, Jonathan Uesato, Po-Sen Huang, Myra Cheng, Mia Glaese, Borja Balle, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, et al. Ethical and social risks of harm from language models, arXiv preprint orxi:22112 12.02112...4 1rx.v:2112.04359, 2021. URL https: /ttsss///axiiii /wwiiaiiiivv///////ea/////aaeeva org/ abs///as///// 2212. 04359.
Tongshuang Wu, Michael Terry, and Carrie J. Cai. AI chains: Transparent and controllable human-Al interaction by chaining large language model prompts. arXiv preprint 1xXi:21100016991 2021. URL https://arxis httpss//aanlv.orrg////////.....
17

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
Tongshuang Wu, Ellen Jiang, Aaron Donsbach, Jeff Gray, Alejandra Molina, Michael Terry, and Carrie J. Cai. Phainer Chaining large language model prompts through visual programming. orxiv preprinl 2XXv:2203.06666 2022a. URL
http://aaxxxv....aaboooo 2203. 06566.
Yuhuai Wu, Markus N Rabe, DeLesley Hutchins, and Christian Szegedy. Memorizing transformers. arXiv preprint XXtt:2203.08913 2022b.
Sang Michael Xie, Aditi Raghunathan, Percy Liang, and Tengyu Ma. An explanation in-context learning implicit bayesian inference. ICLR, 2022. URL
02080.
Andy Zeng, Adrian Wong, Stefan Welker, Krzysztof Choromanski, Federico Tombari, Aveek Purohit, Michael Ryoo, Vikas Sindhwani, Johnny Lee, Vincent Vanhoucke, et al. Socratic models: Composing zero-shot multimodal reasoning with language. arXiv preprint orXiv:2204.00550 2022. URL https:/ pettps://arxtae /arxiv. org/ abs 2204. 00598.
Yian Zhang, Alex Warstadt, Xiaocheng Li, and Samuel R. Bowman. When do you need billions of words of pretraining data? In ACL, 2021. doi: 10.18653/v1 /ttp://l/2221///// //2.//......loonn...e accl-long.90. URL hatpss///claatholooy... http/2222..c111oooe 90.
Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. ICML, 2021. URL https: http://axvvvv.///.///.e/...a.. hwtp://g/gaa//////ee/// 09690.
Denny Zhou, Nathanael Schärli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, and Ed Chi. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models. aiviv preprint ar Xrx:::2005. 10625, 2022. URL https: //tpx//.avvv//////////////.aav org/ h//g/abbb abs 2205 10625.
Barret Zoph, Irwan Bello, Sameer Kumar, Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Jeff Dean, Noam Shazeer, and William Fedus. Designing effective sparse expert models, ar preprint Xiv 08906, 2022. URL https: / a/aaxivv.co wwwp:/iwwog//b//o... /0lps//2222.02 220. 08906.
18

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
A BIG-Bench analysis
A.1 Cross-entropy loss analysis
Here we study how scaling curves may appear differently depending on the evaluation metric used to measure performance. We will focus on the six few-shot prompted BIG-Bench tasks that we consider emergent for LaMDA models. Three of these tasks are generative and use Exact Match (EM) or BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) as the evaluation metric. The other three tasks are classification and use accuracy (acc) as the evaluation metric.
In the scaling curves for these tasks, peformance in EM/BLEU/acc is close to random for small models ($1022 FLOPs / $27B params). We will compare these scaling curves against alternative plots that have a different y-axis measured by cross-eniropy loss. Cross-entropy loss differs from EM/BLEU /ace in that it captures improvements in performance (the predicted distribution getting closer to ground truth) even when the EM/BLEEBEE MMt/BEUU/aae acc random. For example, two examples are both wrong as mcasured by EM/ RM/LLEU/acc, one example may be closer to the ground truth in terms of probabilities, and this information captured by the cross-entropy loss.
These plots are expected to look like one of the following:
Outcome 1: For the model scales where EM/ EM/BLEU/ace is random, cross-entropy loss also does not improve as scale increases. This outcome implics that for these scales, the model truly does not get any better at the tasks.
Outcome 2: For the model scales where EM/BLEU/ar is random, cross-entropy loss does improve. This outcome implies that the models do get better at the task, but these improvements are not reflected the downstream metric of interest. The broader implication that scaling small models improves the models in a way that not reflected in EM/ EM/BLEU/AA /cce, and that there some critical model scale where these improvements enable the downstream metrie to increase to above random an emergent ability.
We find that all six BIG-Bench tasks fall under Outcome 2, and detail this analysis below. Overall, the conclusion from this analysis is that small models do improve in some ways that downstream metrics that EM/BLEU/Acc do not capture. However, these tasks are still considored emergent, and this analysis does not provide any straightforward indicators of how to predict such emergent behaviors.
A.1.1 Generative tasks
Figure 5 shows the cross-entropy loss on the three generative BIG-Bench tasks (modified arithmetic, IPA transliterate, and word unscramble) alongside the downstream evaluation metrics used in Figure 2. For all three lasks, notice that while the error rate is nearly 100% for small models (S1022 FLOPs <27B params), the cross-entropy loss does actually improve for these model sizes. At the point of emergence as measured by error rate, we also see an "elbow" in performance improvement for cross-entropy loss.
A.1.2 Classification tasks
Figure (middle row) shows the cross-entropy loss of the three classification BIG-Bench tasks. Similar to the generative tasks, when the error rate is close to random, cross-cntropy loss consistently still improves for models trained with more compute. This again shows that performance as computed by accuracy can mask consistent improvements in the likelihood of the target sequences.
We also perform an additional analysis of the multiple choice emergent tasks in Figure 6 (bottom row), which shows the log probabilities of the correct response and incorrect response(s). We find that the cross- entropy loss decreases for both the correct and incorrect responses the three emergent multiple choice tasks. Counterintuitively, both probabbbailittes can decrease tandem even when the probability across all available multiple choice responses is normalized. The reason that larger models produce less-extrems probabilities (i.e., values approaching 0 1) and therefore the average log-probabilities have fewer extremely
19

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
T==
T
Random
Modified arithmetic
TPA transliterate
Word unscramble
Error rate (%)
100
100
90
90
80
80
80
70
70
70
1020
1022
1024
1020
10a2
10a4
1020
10a2
10
Cross-entrops loss
15
15
5
5
5
3
1020
1022
1024
1000
10 1024
1030
1022
1024
Training FLOPs
Figure 5: Adjacent plots for error rate and tross-entropy loss three emergent generative tasks in BIG-Bench for LaMDA. We show error rate for both greedy decoding (T = 0) as well random sampling =T= Error rate is (1 exact match score) for modified arithmetic and word unscramble, and (1 BLEU score) for IPA transliterate.
small values. However, we note that for each of these three tasks, that the average log-probability of the correct and incorrect responses eventually deviates at certain scale, during which performance on the task increases substantially.
20

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
LaMDA
Random
Logical arguments
Sports understanding
Figure of speech
Error rate (%)
100
100
100
80
80
80
60
60
40
1090
10
1024
1020
10
1024
1020
10
1024
Cross-entrops loss
3.2
3.2
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.2
0.05
0.05
0.05
10
1022
1024
1020
1022
1024
1020
10
10
Correct response
Incorrect response(s)
Neg. log probability
3.2
3.2
3.2
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.05
0.05
0.05
1020
1022
1024
1020
1022
1024
1020
1022
1024
Model scale (training FLOPs)
Figure Adjacont plots for error rate, cross-entropy loss, and log probabilities of correct and incorrect responses on three classification tasks on BIG-Bench that we consider to demonstrate emergent abilities.
Logical arguments only has 32 samples, which may contribute noise. Error rate is (1 accuracy).
21

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
A.2 Different metrics for generative tasks
In $5.1 we asked whether the apparent emergent abilities generative tasks were due to using particular metric such as exact string match, which does not award partially correct sequences. Here, we show three emergent generative BIG-Bench tasks using all evaluation metrics provided by BIG-Bench, which includes metrics such as BLEU, ROUGE, and BLEURT, that award partial credit for answers that do not exactly match the target. For all three tasks, the emergent behavior appears to be independent of which evaluation metric is used. Hence, we conclude that using exact string match instead of another evaluation metric that awards partial credit is not complete explanation of emergence on generative tasks. Two emergent generative BIG-Bench tasks, word unscramble and repeat copy logie, are excluded here because exact match is the only most sensible evaluation metric for those tasks, which mcasure the ability to manipulate words in the input (and hence metrics like BLEU and ROUGE that give word-level partial credit are not valid).
(A) Mod. arithmetic
(B) IPA transliterate
(C) Periodic elements
Evalnation metric (%)
80
Evaluation metric (%)
80
Evaluation metric (%)
80
Exact match
ROUGEI
60
60
60
ROUGE2
ROUGE L-Sum
40
40
40
BLEURT
BLEU
20
20
20
Sequence F1
Multiple choice grade
0
0
10
1020
1022
1024
10.8
1020
1022
1024
10a8
1020
1022
1024
Figure 7: Multiple evaluation metrics for emergent BIG-Bench tasks that are generative in nature. For all three tasks, emergent behavior is apparent for all evaluation metrics.
A.3 BIG-Bench task analysis
BIG-Bench contains over 200 tasks, and each task has associated keywords identified by the authors who submitted the task (e.g., "common sense", "multilingual"). Given this, we asked the question, which types of BIG-Bench tasks are more likely to be emergent (compared with scaling smoothly)? For this analysis, we manually classified all 210 BIG-Bench tasks thus far emergent or not. We used the definition of emergence given in $3, which is that the task had near-random performance until certain scale, after which performance increases to substantially above random (as opposed to smoothly increasing). Because this definition is potentially subjective based on the definition of "ncar-random" " (and any houristic we decide on would encode these subjective biases), two co-authors of the paper worked logether and agreed with confidence on all the tasks labeled as emergent. For full transparency, this set of annotations is listed in Appendix E.
In Figure 8, we show the number of tasks that emergent for each keyword in BIG-Bench. Furthermore, we stratify them by tasks that first emerged with LaMDA 137B GPT-3 175B, as well tasks that were not emergent until using PaLM models. The non-emergent tasks in this plot include eit "smoothly increasing" tasks (performance predictably increased with model size) or "flat" tasks (all models achieved approximately random performance). The remaining 40 BIG-Bench tasks not included in this chart did not fit into any of the above categories (e.g., too noisy due to very few eval examples, performance not correlated with model scale, ctc.).
Since the number of tasks per keyword varied substantially among keywords, and most keywords had less than twenty tasks, the "most emergent" keywords differed depending whether we compare number of emergent tasks or percentage of emergent tasks per keyword. Tracking the absolute number of emergent lasks per keyword is problematic since it effectively just captures the most common keywords used across BigBench. We therefore tracked which keywords had the highest percent of emergent tasks, which were analogical reasoning, word sense disambiguation, truthfulness, social reasoning, and emotional undorstanding. While one might expect a priori that reasoning-relat tasks would more likely to be emergent, only two of the top five tasks were reasoning and other keyword tags like logical reasoning and causal reasoning did not.
22

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
have particularly high fraction of emergent tasks. Morcover, arithmetic and mathematics had relatively low percentage of emergent tasks, which was unexpected since some of the earliest examples of emergence were on arithmetic (Brown et al., 2020). Overall, there are no clear trends for which types of tasks are most emergent.
Finally, examining which keywords have the most tasks with flat scaling curves can also align with prior intuitions. For instance, visual reasoning has the largest fraction of tasks with flat scaling curves (8/13), since language models are not designed for visual reasoning. Other categories with large fraction of flat scaling curve tasks non-language, repeated interaction, context length, computer code, and multi-step all targeting weaknesses of large language models. These flat categories could be directions for future work in emergence in large language models.
50
45
40
35
Number of tasks
30
Emergent with LaMDA/GPT
25
Emergent with PaLM
Smoothly increasing
20
Flat (no model better than random)
15
10
0
logical- logical-
reading-romproil reopreeessionn
common--senig sense
context- free- diee-question doo--o-n answering
analogical reassning
human- fke-behavior
mathematics
contextual questton---ee mansttioo-nnswrrii ans--nsswiiigg wuring
social eocial-rent sal-reassningg
mumerical-re cannorical-respooo response
arithrnctic
non- language
ton- English
visual- de riuuiiitn
Implicit- reasoning
creativity
causal ressoning
emotional- emotional- wea.--nndettaannn nenig ting
paraphrase r
computer- womputer-cooe code
word sord-aanse--de sood--snse-dlsamiigue tion
multilinge l
deeeeddsennnnnne low-resso wecoouure--nnngee language
mullti-tte
context leagth
marrative-tna indeestteeettaann tanding
translation ittion
theory Mecry-offmmn f-mind
de rization
domoin Komoin-speelle -peeeiiii
repeated interactienn
truthfulness
Keyword Tag
Figure 8: Proportion of emergent tasks for keywords in BIG-Bench (each task can be associated with multiple keywords). We only included keywords with at least five tasks. Smoothly increasing: performance improved predictably model scale increased. Emergent with LaMDA/GPi performance was near-random until used with LaMDA 137B or GPT-3 175B. Emergent with PaLM: performance was near-random for all previous models, until using a PaLM model (8B, 62B, or 540B). Flat: no model performs betler than random.
23

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
B Further MMLU analysis
In $5.3, we saw how emergent performance on MMLU for Gopher and Chinchilla could be viewed function of training FLOPs, model parameters, and Wex perplexity. Because MMLU actually a suite of 57 topics spanning four categories, we ask the question of whether certain categories were more conducive to emergence than others. This similar in nature to the BIG-Bench analysis done in the prior section (Appendix A.3). One difference here is that the MMLU categories are mutually exclusive-cach topic only has calegory, whereas single BIG-Bench task often had multiple keyword lags. However, there are only four categories and 57 tasks for MMLU (compared with 200+ tasks and dozens of keywords for BIG-Bench).
In Figure 10, we stratify the performance of MMLU among the four categories given in the benchmark (Humanitics, STEM, Social Science, and other), and plot them with multiple 2-axcs: training FLOPs, model parameters, and WikiText103 perplexily. It clear that Social Science and Humanities have the largest jump in performance from the second-largess to the largest model, and STEM has the smallest jump in performance. For given a-axis (training FLOPs, model parameters, WikiText ppl), all four categories had similar plot shapes. This result is also summarized in Figure 9.
100
Chinchilla: Humanities
Chinchilla: STEM
Performance of largest model
75
Chinchilla: Other
Chinchilla: Social Science
50
Gopher: Humanities
Gopher: STEM
25
Gopher: Other
Gopher: Social Science
Random performance (25%)
0
25
50
75
100
Performance of second-large largest model
Figure 9: Performance of largest Chinchilla and Gopher models (70B and 280B, respectively) compared with the second-largest model (7B parameters for both Chinchhla and Gopher). The 7B Chinchilla and Gopher models perform around random (25%) for all four categories. So the categories that improved the most from 7B to 70B/280B are humanities and social science, whereas STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) improved the least.
24

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
Chinchilla
Gopher
Random
MMLU: Humanities
100
100
100
Accuracy (%)
80
80
80
40
40
40
20
20
20
10a0
10a2
10
1B
10B
100B
20 15
10
7
5
Training FLOPs
Model parameters
WikiText103 ppl
MMLU: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM)
100
100
Accuracy (%)
80
80
60
60
60
40
40
40
20
20
20
10
10
10
1B
10B 100B
Training FLOPs
Model parameters
WikiText103 ppl
MMLU: Other
100
100
Accuracy (%)
80
80
80
60
60
60
20
20
20
0
0
1020
10a2
1024
10B 100B
20 15
10
Training FLOPs
Model parameters
WikiText103 ppl
MMLU: Social Science
100
100
100
Accuracy (%)
80
80
80
40
40
40
20
20
20
10a0
1022
10
1B
10B
100B
20 15
10
7
5
Training FLOPs
Model parameters
WikiText109 103 ppl
Figure 10: Emergence of Chinchilla and Gopher on MMLU. In the four rows, performance is stratified into four supercategories. For both Chinchilla and Gopher, Social Science had the highest level of emergence while STEM was the least emergent.
25

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
C All Model Details
Table 2 below summarizes the parameter count, number of training tokens, and the training FLOPs for the models highlighted in our work. The models span from the smallest LaMDA model with 2.1M parameters to the largest PaLM model with 540B parameters and 2.5 training FLOOPs roughly 8x the computational budget of GPT-3.
Table 2: Parameters, training examples, and training FLOPs of large language models.
Model
Parameters
Train tokens
Train FLOPs
GPT-3
125M
300B
2.25E-4-00
350M
300B
6,41E+220
760M
300B
1.37E+21
1.3B
300B
2.38E+21
2.7B
300B
4.77E++21
6.7B
300B
1.20E++22
13B
300B
2.31E++22
175B
300B
3.14E++23
LaMDA
2.1M
262B
3.30E+18
17M
313B
3.16E++19
57M
262B
8.90E 19
134M
170B
1.37E+200
262M
264B
4.16F++20
453M
150B
4.08E++20
1.1B
142B
9.11E+20
2.1B
137B
1.72E++21
3.6B
136B
2.
8.6B
132B
6.78E-+22
29B
132B
2.30E+22
69B
292B
1.20E++23
137B
674B
5.54E++23
Gopher
417M
300B
7.51F++20
1.4B
300B
2.52F.+21
7.1B
300B
1,28É++22
280B
325B
5.46E+23
Chinchilla
417M
314B
7,86E+20
1.4B
314B
2.63E+21
7.1B
[sic]
199B
8.47E++22
70B
1.34T
5.63E +-33
PaLM
8B
780B
3.74E+222
62B
780B
2.90E+223
540B
780B
2.53E+
Anthropic LM
800M
850B
4.08E+21
3B
850B
1.53E+22
12B
850B
6.12E+22
52B
850B
2.65E 22
26

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
D Scaling with Parameter Count
Figures 11, 12, and 13 shows emergent abilitics with an z-axis of number of model paramcters.
LaMDA
GPT-3
Gopher
Chinchilla
PaLM
Random
(A) Mod. arithmetic
(B)
IPA transliterate
(C)
Word unscramble
(D) Persian QA
50
50
50
50
40
40
Exact match (%)
40
Exact match (%)
40
Accuracy (%)
BLEU (%)
30
20
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
10M
1B
100B
10M
1B
100B
10M
100B
10M
1B
100B
(E) TruthfulQA
(F) Grounded mappings
(G)
Multi-task NLU
(H)
Word in context
70
70
70
70
60
60
60
Accuracy (%)
Accuracy (%)
Accuracy (%)
Accuracy (%)
30
30
30
30
20
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
0
0
100M
10B
IT
100M
10B
1T
100M
10B
1T
100M
10B
1T
Model scale (number of parameters)
Figure 11: Eight examples of emergence in the few-shot prompting setting, Each point separate model. The ability to perform task via few-shot prompting is emergent when language model achieves random performance until certain scale, after which performance significantly increases to well-above random. Note that models with more parameters also typically use more training compute-hence we show an analogous figure with training FLOPs instead of number of model parameters as the x-axis in Figure 2. A DD: BIG-Bench (2022), 2-shot, Lin et al. (2021) and Rae et al. (2021). Patel & Pavlick (2022). G: Hendrycks et al. (2021a), Rae et al. (2021), and Hoffmann et al. (2022). H: Brown et al. (2020), Hoffmann et al. (2022), and Chowdhery et al. (2022) on the WiC benchmark (Pilehvar & Camacho-Collase 2019).
27

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
(A) Math word problems
(B) Instruction
following
(C) 8-digit addition
% ECE (log-scale, docreasing)
(D) Calibration
25
GSM8K Accuracy (%)
10 NLU task average
70
Instruction
100
Scratchpad
10"
T/F
20
Chain of thought
tuning
60
Accuracy (%)
15
60
50
No
Letter choices
10
astructio tuning
40
40
No
104
chato chought -mn
scratchpac
30
1B
10B
100B
1B
10B
100B
10M 100M 1B
1B
10B
100B
Model scale (number of parameters)
Figure 12: Specialized prompting or finetuning methods can be emergent in that they do not have a positive effect until a certain model scale. A: Wei et al. (2022b). B: Wei al. (2022a). C: Nye et al. (2021). D: Kadavath al. (2022). The model shown in A-C is LaMDA (Thoppilan et al., 2022), and the model shown in D is from Authropic.
Prior SOTA
Few-shot prompting
(A) TriviaQA (GPT-3)
(B)
Physical QA (GPT-3)
(C) GSMSK
(D) OKVQA (Flamingo)
(PaLM)
100
90
Aceuracy (%)
80
Accuracy (%)
Accuracy (%)
80
40
VQA accuracy
40
60
30
30
40
20
20
100B
1B
100B
8B 62B 540B
80B
Model scale (number paramcters)
Figure 13: On some benchmarks, task-general models (not explicitly trained to perform a task) surpass prior state-of-the-art performance held by task-specific model. A & B: Brown al. (2020). C: Chowdhery et al. (2022). D: Alayrac et al. (2022).
28

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
E BIG-Bench Task Classification
This appendix contains the task classification annotations used for Figure 8 in Appendix A.3. Each task only appears in a single category. That is, if a task was initially emergent with GPT-3 or LaMDA, we excluded it from the PaLM emergence category.
Notably, Appendix E.4 lists the tasks where no model performs better than random (i.e., flat scaling curve). These tasks are potential candidates for future emergence, since a model in the future might achieve above-random performance on them.
E.1
Smoothly increasing
abstract narrative understanding, auto categorization, bbq lite json, cause and effect, chess state tracking, con- lang translation, context definition alignment, contextual paramotric knowledge conflicts, coqa conversational question answering, cryobiology spanish, date understanding, emojis emotion prediction, empirical judgments, entailed polarity, evaluating information essentiality, forecasting subquestions, gem, general knowledge, hindi question answering, human organs senses, implicatures, implicit relations, intent recognition, linguistic mappings, list functions, matrixshapes, mult data wrangling, multiemo, natural instructions, nonsense words grammar, object counting, operators, penguins in a table, physics, polish sequence labeling, qa wikidata, reasoning about colored objects, rephrase, riddle sense, sentence ambiguity, similarities abstraction, simp turing concept, simple arithmetic, simple arithmetic json, simple arithmetic json multiple choice, simple arithmetic json subtasks, simple arithmetic multiple targets json, simple ethical questions, squad shifts, subject verb agrecment, swedish german proverbs, undo permutation, unit conversion, unnatural in context. learning, bridging anaphora resolution barqa, disfl qa, novel concepts, periodic elements
E.2 Emergent with GPT-3 or LaMDA
analytic entailment, codenames, common morpheme, fact checker, figure of speech detection, gender inclusive sentences german, hindu knowledge, international phonetic alphabet transliterate, irony identification, logical args, logical deduction, misconceptions, modified arithmetic, phrase relatedness, physical intuition, question answer creation, repeat copy logic, self evaluation tutoring, social iqa, sports understanding, strange stories, strategyqa, swahili english proverbs, word sorting, word unscrambling
E.3 Emergent wih PaLM
anachronisms, analogical similarity, ascii word recognition, auto debugging, causal judgment, code line description, conceptual combinations, crass ai, cryptonite, cs algorithms, disambiguation qa, elementary math qa, emoji movie, english proverbs, english russian proverbs, geometric shapes, goal step wikihow, gre reading comprehension, hinglish toxicity, hyperbaton, identify odd metaphor, international phonetic alphabet nli, language identification, linguistics puzzles, logic grid puzzle, logical fallacy detection, logical sequence, metaphor boolean, melaphor understanding, movie dialog same or different, odd one out, parsinlu qa, parsinlu reading comprehension, physics questions, question selection, snarks, sufficient. information, temporal sequences, timedial, understanding fables, unit interpretation, vitamine fact verification
E.4 Flat (no model better than random)
abstraction and reasoning corpus, authorship verification, checkmate in one, chinese remainder theorem, cifar10 classification, color, com2sense, cycled letters, discourse marker prediction, formal fallacies syllogisms negation, hhh alignment, kanji ascii, kannada, key value maps, language games, mathematical induction, minute mysteries qa, misconceptions russian, mnist ascii, multistep arithmetic, navigate, paragraph segmentation, play dialog same or different, presuppositions as uli, program synthesis, python programming challenge, real or fake text, roots optimization and games, salient translation error detection, self awareness, semantic parsing in context sparc, semantic parsing spider, simple text editing, sudoku, symbol interpretation, talkdown, tense, text navigation game, topical chat, tracking shuffled objects, twenty questions, web of lies, which wiki edit, winowhy, word problems on sets and graphs
29

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (08/2022)
E.5 Other
Better than random and not correlated with scale: boolean expressions, crash blossom, dynamic counling, entailed polarity hindi, epistemic reasoning, factuality of summary, fantasy reasoning, gender sensitivity chinese, gender scnsitivity english, high low game, identify math theorems, intersect goometry, muslim violence bias, persian idioms, protein interacting sites, scientific press release, self evaluation courtoomm, social support, spelling bee, taboo, training on test set, truthful qa, yes no black white, dark humor detection, dyck languages, moral permissibility, ruin names
Model gets worse with scale: bbq lite, bias from probabilities, diverse social bias, movie recommendation, unqover
Not enough examples: known unknowns, suicide risk, what is the tao
Incomplete evals: convinceme, long context integration, medical questions russian
Other: arithmetic (emergent 1B, which is none of the above categories), few-shot nlg (not sure why BLEURT is negalive here)
F PaLM 62B is emergent but GPT-3 and LaMDA are not
We made the point in $5.2 that scale is not the only factor in emergence, since PaLM 62B shows emergence many BIG-Bench tasks for which GPT-3 175B and LaMDA 137B do not, even though PaLM 62B has fewer model parameter and less training FLOPs.
This is the list of tasks: anachronisms, ascii word recognition, conceptual combinations, cryptonite, disam- biguation qa, emoji movic, goal step wikihow, gre reading comprehension, linguistics puzzles, logic grid puzzle, melaphor boolean, metaphor understanding, odd one out, parsinlu qa.
30


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "PH4s1GEz3J", "reviewer": "Reviewer_4m8p", "summary": "", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": null, "confidence": null, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "**Strengths**\n\n- The paper is well-written and easy to understand.\n- The proposed concept of Emergence is interesting and as expected in this work, which may simulate future work on understanding and explaining the learning behaviors of large language models. \n- The analysis across multiple large language models and several different tasks seems solid. \n\n**Weaknesses**\n\n- The results in figure 2 are probably misleading. For any given model with fixed numbers of parameters, smaller training FLOPs could mean the models are not well trained, instead of considering them as smaller models. To my understanding, drawing conclusions from training FLOPs could be the main limitation of this work. A piece of more convincing evidence could be a comparison across different models with varying model parameters trained on the same resources. If Emergence is really a property associated with model size, it is reasonable to expect its appearance regardless of model architectures (and other factors related to how to build a model). \n- As explained in the paper, model performance has too many confounding factors. However, the argument of mainly using FLOPs is not convincing. More experiments and analyses like figure 4 are needed in this work.\n- In addition to the prompt-based test, I am wondering whether the performance can also be tested with other techniques.\n", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "paper_topic_and_main_contributions": "", "excitement": null, "reproducibility": null, "ethical_concerns": "", "main_review": "", "summary_of_the_paper": "", "summary_of_the_review": "", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "", "review_text": "", "summary_of_contributions": "This work proposes the concept of Emergence to explain a phenomenon of large language models that certain abilities only emerge when the models are large enough. In this paper, it defines an ability is emergent if it is not present in smaller models but is present in larger models. Instead of using model size or other factors, this work suggests using training compute (FLOPs) to measure the model size. The concept of Emergence was tested with five large language models with eight categories of tasks.", "claims_and_evidence_yn": "", "claims_explanation": "", "audience_yn": "", "audience_explanation": "", "requested_changes": "Further changes are expected to address the aforementioned limitations. Particularly, \n\n- A comparison of model performance based on model size instead of training FLOPs with the same training resources\n- Additional performance tests, besides the prompt-bassed ones. ", "broader_impact_concerns": "None", "additional_comments": "", "extra_scores": {}, "extra_text": {}}, {"review_id": "aWfAMZwEDE", "reviewer": "Reviewer_Jq3i", "summary": "", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": null, "confidence": null, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "### Strengths:\n- This paper touches on an important and timely topic.\n- The survey is very comprehensive, well organized and well written.\n- The insights offered in the survey could open up new lines of research.\n\n### Weaknesses:\n- The paper is currently focused on models trained on English data and could benefit from discussion of what emerging capabilities are emerging in these models versus multilingual models, and if there are trends that are similar or different.\n- The section on emergent concerns is rather limited in discussion than the strengths, and I do acknowledge that there's a lot more work on risks than capabilities in this space, but the paper currently does not include discussion on what risks might emerge as more capabilities emerge.\n- There's not much discussion on future work in the paper. What are some promising directions for future work?", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "paper_topic_and_main_contributions": "", "excitement": null, "reproducibility": null, "ethical_concerns": "", "main_review": "", "summary_of_the_paper": "", "summary_of_the_review": "", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "", "review_text": "", "summary_of_contributions": "This paper surveys the literature to study emergent abilities of large language models. The authors share a clear definition of emergence and illustrate it with several examples from the literature. They survey a range of prior work in order to categorize different types of emergent abilities. The paper highlights how emergence motivates future research on why such abilities are acquired and whether more scaling will lead to further emergent abilities. The survey is comprehensive, well-organized, and easy to follow. I really like this paper and am confident this paper would encourage greater conversation on this topic but also have some minor concerns/suggestions listed below.\n\n", "claims_and_evidence_yn": "", "claims_explanation": "", "audience_yn": "", "audience_explanation": "", "requested_changes": "Other than the weaknesses listed above, one thing I would like to see more on is some discussion on why these abilities emerge, which could also include a summary of the work coming from computational neuroscience and psychology, as well as theory (are there certain kinds of architectures that have created these new abilities for instance?)", "broader_impact_concerns": "N/A", "additional_comments": "", "extra_scores": {}, "extra_text": {}}, {"review_id": "QWNeVBHfky", "reviewer": "Reviewer_G7uJ", "summary": "", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": null, "confidence": null, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "**Strengths**\nThe paper includes a survey on discontiguous improvements made by large language models, aggregating results from multiple papers in a compact and coherent manner. The key message is very clear while presenting these results.\nThe paper discusses a range of broader implications including how this phenomenon can be applied to smaller-scale models, potential risk, sociological implication and more.\n\n**Key weakness**\n(As I detailed below) the paper does not have sufficient originality in the sense that it does not provide any new results/indications/insights on behaviors of language models. The paper largely focuses on showing how much emergence occurs in a “sudden” manner, bringing reports from previous work. It relies on the “magic” of emergence, rather than providing new insights on why this is happening and when it happens/does not happen.\n\nIn order to be accepted, I believe there should be more fundamental changes made, as I described in the \"Requested Changes\" section.\n\n**Detailed weaknesses**\n* The survey part of the paper is simply an aggregation of results reported in previous work without providing new axes of results or new insights. In most cases, exact results and indications are already reported and discussed in the cited papers. To point out a few:\nMost figures in Figure 2 are exact copy of figures from the cited papers, e.g., the BigBench paper (Figure App.4)\n    * Figure 3A is an exact copy of one of Figure 4 in [Wei et al. 2022. C], and the same discussion is made in this paper: “Notably, chain of thought reasoning is an emergent ability of increasing model scale.”\n    * Figure 3B is an exact copy of Figure 7 in [Wei et al. 2022. F], and the same discussion is made in this paper: “the benefits of instruction tuning emerge only with sufficient model scale.”\n    * Figure 3C and D is an (almost) exact copy of Figure 3.\n* The survey part of the paper does not include new discussion or provide new insights on such discontinuous improvements, apart from simply reporting them that are already reported in the cited papers. For instance, the paper could have included results or analysis on different axes of scale (e.g. model parameters, pre-training data size, etc, apart from FLOP), or compare results in different metrics (in light of discussion in Section 5.1) to include more precise evidence for claims in Section 5.\n* Most claims in Section 5 are not grounded by real evidence reported in the paper, only hypothetical, or too generic. To point out a few:\n    * “The overall implication is that further scaling will likely endow even-larger language models with new emergent abilities.” – This is one of the main claims also mentioned in the abstract, and examples in Section 4 are provided as evidence. I do not believe this can be evidence, although it can be an example. The paper does not discuss potential new abilities that current largest models do not have but larger models in the future may potentially have. The paper does not discuss how the larger scale can be achieved, given that scaling the currently-dominated, dense language has been claimed to be non-trivial.\n    * First paragraph of Section 5.1: I found these explanations are too loose to be a convincing explanation of emergent behaviors. An l-step reasoning task requiring at least O(l) layers is technically correct, but we already know 2 layers are not enough for two-step reasoning tasks. The aspect of knowledge memorization explains performance increasing linearly, but does not explain performance increasing discontinuously. \n    * The rest of paragraphs in Section 5.1 are not about “Potential explanations of emergence”. These discussions are more about the limitations on evaluating models, which should be included in Section 4, potentially with how different metrics change the result reported in Section 4. (And this applies to Section 5.3.)\n    * Section 5.2 is a pretty generic survey on other factors of language models aside from scale. It seems only loosely related, unless the connection to emergent abilities of language models is discussed or demonstrated more tightly.\n\n**References**\nWei et al. 2022. F: https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.01652 \nWei et al. 2022. C: https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903\nNye et al. 2021. https://openreview.net/forum?id=iedYJm92o0a \nBigBench 2022: https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.04615 \n\n**Update after author responses**\nThank you for extensive responses and updates based on my review. I really appreciate authors' detailed responses, and I think most changes I requested (other than more open-ended requests) were made, e.g., adding more discussion, more empirical analysis with respect to different training budget, different metrics, etc. I must say I still have doubt whether this satisfies TMLR's criteria on survey paperson \"drawing *new, previously unreported* connections between several pieces of work in an area\" since I still believe the phenomenon of discontinuous improvements on various end tasks as models scale has been already reported in many papers. However, I agree that this paper did great job in aggregating all empirical phenomenon and discussions in a single piece, and given that the updated version of the paper includes some new analysis not found in prior work (Figure 4, and more analysis that is mostly in Appendix), I am fine with accepting this paper.\n", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "paper_topic_and_main_contributions": "", "excitement": null, "reproducibility": null, "ethical_concerns": "", "main_review": "", "summary_of_the_paper": "", "summary_of_the_review": "", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "", "review_text": "", "summary_of_contributions": "This paper is a combination of a survey and an opinion piece, where the main ciam is: “language models exhibit emergent abilities—discontinuous improvements as scale increases, and this suggests additional scaling will unblock unpredictable capacity of language models”.\n\nThe first part of the paper surveys results from existing papers that show discontinuous improvements on a range of end tasks as scale increases, in language model prompting, chain-of-thought reasoning and instruction tuning. \n\nThe second part of the paper includes broader implications, including what would lead to this behavior, how this phenomenon could appear in smaller-scale models as well, and how this phenomenon has changed the application in NLP.\n", "claims_and_evidence_yn": "", "claims_explanation": "", "audience_yn": "", "audience_explanation": "", "requested_changes": "* A broader overview on when emergent abilities occur / do not occur (e.g., in terms of tasks, models) that is beyond what has been already reported in prior work\n* More systematic analysis on how exactly emergent abilities occur\n* More systematic hypotheses & empirical evidence on why emergent abilities occur, i.e., what leads to discontinuous improvements as scale increases\n* More systematic survey & empirical evidence on the impact of evaluation metrics in evaluating emergent abilities, beyond what has been already reported in prior work (could be elaboration from current Section 5.1/5.3)\n* More systematic survey & empirical evidence on factors for emergent abilities beyond scale (could be elaborated from current Section 5.2)\n* More fundamental evidence on the claim \"further scaling will likely endow even-larger language models with new emergent abilities\" with more concrete discussion (with possibly evidence) on how those new emergent abilities would look like and how further scaling will be possibly in a approachable way.", "broader_impact_concerns": "Section 5.3 briefly discusses emergent risks, focusing on security issues in extraction of training data. The paper should include (self-contained) discussion on broader risks in applying large language models, including models having bias/harmful contents.", "additional_comments": "", "extra_scores": {}, "extra_text": {}}]

Author rebuttal:

Meta-review: This paper discusses the phenomenon of special abilities emerging in large language models that are not present in smaller models and cannot be easily predicted using the performance of the smaller models. The authors present a comprehensive survey of existing results showcasing such abilities, along with a detailed discussion of broader implications including potential sociological risks, emergence in smaller models and future applications. Based on reviewer feedback, the authors have revised the paper to include new insightful analyses that go beyond aggregating existing results in literature. Overall, this paper provides a valuable survey and discussion that will inform future research involving large LMs. 
Decision: Accept (poster)