Beyond the Bayesian vs. Frequentist Debate in the Advent of Large Language Models

CP Lu, PhD

Introduction

There has long been a debate among statisticians about two different ways of thinking about probabilities: the Bayesian way and the frequentist way. However, with the emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) — advanced AI systems capable of understanding and generating human-like text — this debate is taking an interesting turn.

Probabilistic reasoning, which lies at the heart of this debate, involves utilizing probabilities to make predictions. Bayesian methods are recognized for their elegant mathematical framework that allows for the incorporation of prior knowledge and the adjustment of beliefs based on new evidence. It’s analogous to making decisions with beliefs shaped by past experiences. However, applying Bayesian methods to LLMs poses significant challenges. While the underlying mathematical principles may appear elegant, the development of these AI systems entails intricate considerations.

On the other hand, frequentist methods focus on the frequency of outcomes. They rely on counting how often something happens to make predictions about future events. However, these methods have been criticized for their inflexibility in handling uncertainty and the difficulty of incorporating prior knowledge. They also heavily rely on null hypothesis significance testing, a technique used to test assumptions against available data. This approach doesn’t align well with the training process of LLMs.

The advent of LLMs is stirring up this debate by bridging these two perspectives. This introduces two intriguing twists to the discussion. First, as we develop LLMs, we are essentially exploring our own capacity to reason with probabilities. It’s like using a mirror to gain insights into our own minds.

Second, LLMs exhibit characteristics of both Bayesian and frequentist approaches. They make predictions based on learned patterns, showcasing their Bayesian side. Simultaneously, they heavily rely on training with large amounts of data, aligning with the frequentist approach.

By recognizing that both humans and LLMs possess reasoning abilities, we can move beyond the simplistic Bayesian vs. frequentist divide. Embracing the intersection of these two ways of thinking enables us to tackle the challenges posed by LLMs head-on. This not only enhances our understanding of these AI systems but also sheds light on the intricacies of our own reasoning capabilities.

Understanding LLMs

Large Language Models (LLMs) are advanced AI systems that can generate text that makes sense and fits the situation. At their core, they are essentially next-word predictors, trained on a vast amount of data to guess the next word in a sentence with remarkable accuracy, almost like a human would. This next-word predicting capability forms the basis of their complex, human-like behaviors, which is a fascinating concept in itself.

For instance, consider a game of fill-in-the-blanks. An LLM is given the sentence “The sun is shining and the _____.” Based on all the data it’s been trained on, it can guess that the next word might be something like “sky,” “weather,” or “temperature.” It’s able to do this because it has learned typical language patterns and understands the context of the sentence.

LLMs are proving their worth in many areas where next-word prediction comes in handy. They’re being used to create responses in chatbots, showing how guessing the next word or phrase based on context can lead to smoother and more natural conversations between people and machines.

But there’s a bigger picture here. As we continue to explore what LLMs can do, we start to think about their place in the ongoing debate between the Bayesian and frequentist ways of thinking about probability. How do LLMs, with their impressive language skills and next-word predicting capabilities, fit into these two different viewpoints? Could they help us find some common ground between the Bayesian and frequentist approaches? This exploration not only helps us understand these AI systems better but also shines a light on our own reasoning abilities.

To get a handle on these questions, let’s dive into the classic example of tossing a coin, a basic problem in probability.

Let’s Talk Coin Tosses: The Fair Coin or the Rational Tosser?

The Bayesian and frequentist viewpoints on the nature of probability are illustrated in the following diagram:

The Bayesian and frequentist viewpoints on the nature of probability can be showcased with the simple act of tossing a coin.

Frequentists believe that probabilities are inherent properties of the world, estimated through repeated trials. For instance, imagine tossing a coin 1000 times and finding 490 heads and 510 tails. From a frequentist perspective, this would lead to a belief that the probability of getting heads is approximately 0.49. If another 1000 tosses yield 1005 heads and 995 tails, a frequentist wouldn’t simply adjust the probability to 0.5025. Instead, they would propose a new hypothesis, perhaps that the probability is exactly 0.5, and test it against the observed data. This methodology highlights the iterative and hypothesis-driven nature of the frequentist approach, but it also underscores its rigidity, as probabilities are seen as fixed properties and require substantial data to estimate accurately.

On the other hand, the Bayesian approach integrates prior beliefs and updates them based on new evidence. In the case of a fair coin toss, a Bayesian may start with a prior belief that the probability of getting heads is 0.5, without conducting any actual toss. This reflects their subjective belief in the fairness of the coin. As new data becomes available, Bayesians update their beliefs accordingly, incorporating the observed evidence to revise the probability.

For those interested in the mathematical details, the Bayesian updating process is epitomized by Bayes’ rule:

P(H|D) = [P(D|H) * P(H)] / P(D)

This formula represents how Bayesians update the probability of a hypothesis (H) based on new data (D). If only two hypotheses are under consideration (H and ¬H), the probability of the data, P(D), can be calculated by:

P(D) = P(D|H) * P(H) + P(D|¬H) * P(¬H)

This process becomes more complicated with high-dimensional and continuous hypotheses, as with LLM parameters.

The Bayesian approach justifies the use of subjective prior beliefs by employing concepts of information and entropy from information theory. Equal probabilities are assigned in the absence of knowledge, a principle of maximum entropy. Jaynes argued that this principle ensures that different entities — human or AI — with the same information would arrive at the same probability distribution, thus demonstrating the objectivity of the Bayesian approach.

The Self-Reference of Reasoning Agents

Human reasoning agents rely on cognitive processes, such as deduction, induction, and abduction, to make sense of the world, form beliefs, and arrive at conclusions. They draw upon prior knowledge, personal experiences, and cognitive biases, all while being influenced by emotions and subjective perspectives.

On the other hand, artificial reasoning agents, like AI systems, leverage computational algorithms and models to mimic aspects of human reasoning. These systems are trained on vast amounts of data and employ sophisticated techniques, such as machine learning and probabilistic reasoning, to process and analyze information. They strive to generate coherent and logical responses based on patterns learned from their training data.

Exploring the role of reasoning agents, be they human or artificial, inevitably leads us down a recursive path. It’s a bit like looking into a mirror to examine our own minds, a fascinating act of self-reference, as shown in the diagram below:

This phenomenon becomes even more compelling in the context of Large Language Models (LLMs), which epitomize our efforts to understand and replicate our language comprehension and generation capabilities.

However, this introspective perspective poses the risk of infinite regression, where incorporating prior beliefs could lead to an endless cycle of justification, much like falling down a rabbit hole. Here, the Maximum Entropy Principle (MEP) comes to the rescue.

The MEP, proposed by E.T. Jaynes, provides a systematic way to determine prior beliefs without falling into the infinite regression trap.

In a more practical sense, the Maximum Entropy Principle (MEP) can be likened to the approach of “not making any assumptions about what we don’t know.” For example, when training an AI model and lacking precise knowledge of the model’s parameters, we begin by assuming that all values are equally likely within known constraints. This assumption is the most “spread out” or uncertain stance we can adopt, as it avoids presuming any knowledge we don’t possess.

Jaynes argued that the MEP ensures that different entities — human or AI — with the same information would arrive at the same probability distribution, thus demonstrating the objectivity of the Bayesian approach. This principle of maximum entropy is a way to achieve rationality in determining prior beliefs.

For those interested in the mathematical details, entropy (H) is defined as:

H(P) = — ∑ P(x) log P(x)

where P(x) is the probability of an event x. The goal is to maximize this entropy subject to the constraints that we have, which are usually based on the data we’ve observed.

For instance, in their paper “Understanding Deep Learning Generalization by Maximum Entropy” (Wu & Zhu, 2023), the authors illustrate the pervasive use of MEP in AI development. Developers apply this principle intuitively, leading to deep neural networks (DNNs) that embody a recursive solution adhering to maximum entropy.

In the Bayesian vs. frequentist debate, the MEP offers insights that resonate with both perspectives. While the Bayesian approach updates prior beliefs, MEP ensures this process avoids infinite regression. Meanwhile, the frequentist viewpoint, rooted in observed frequencies and long-run probabilities, aligns with MEP’s mission to represent uncertainty in the most complete way possible.

Exploring the Bayesian Nature of LLMs

Let’s take a closer look at how Large Language Models (LLMs), with their unique features, both challenge and augment the classic Bayesian and frequentist viewpoints on probability and reasoning.

LLMs are like linguistic wizards. They’re armed with extensive knowledge and sophisticated language comprehension skills, which they use to employ probabilistic reasoning and produce coherent and contextually apt responses. Their training, rooted in diverse textual sources, instills in them an inherent understanding of objective language patterns and structures such as grammar rules, syntactic relationships, and semantic associations.

While LLMs may not adhere strictly to the Bayesian principle, their nature of probability is predominantly Bayesian. They incorporate prior beliefs and evidence in their reasoning process, enabling them to craft responses that not only align with explicit patterns in the training data but also weave in subjective elements. This capacity to meld objective and subjective facets into their responses sets LLMs apart and signifies a noteworthy evolution in AI (Xie, 2021).

Considering the probabilistic nature of LLMs, it becomes evident that they function as reasoning agents inclined towards Bayesian thinking. Their probabilistic reasoning bears a distinct Bayesian imprint (Betz, 2023). This perspective questions the traditional exclusivity of Bayesian and frequentist approaches, introducing fresh pathways to comprehend probabilistic reasoning.

Recognizing LLMs as artificial reasoning agents with a Bayesian-leaning nature of probability allows us to delve into the intriguing interplay between objective patterns and subjective reasoning in probabilistic inference. Investigating LLMs and their probabilistic reasoning abilities serves as a stepping stone towards a more profound understanding of AI systems and their potential to shape our future.

To Marginalize or Not: The Intricacy of LLM Development

When we train Large Language Models (LLMs), it’s like preparing a team of coaches for a big game. We use a lot of data to fine-tune the model parameters of a neural network (NN), which acts as the playbook for our team. Once the LLMs are trained, they can operate independently, making decisions based on the input data they receive, just like our team playing the game and responding to the moves of the opposing team.

During the training phase, our goal is to determine the best distribution of model parameters, denoted as ‘w.’ In the game phase, also known as the “AI inference” phase, the LLMs aim to predict ‘Y’ — which could be a label or the next token — based on the observed ‘X’ and fixed values for the model parameters ‘w.’ In other words, for LLMs, P(Y|X, w) represents the probability distribution of the next token.

Now, here’s where it gets a bit tricky. When we’re training the LLMs, we use Bayes’ rule to update our beliefs about model parameters ‘w’ based on the data we observe. This involves a process called marginalization, which is like calculating the average of a large list of numbers. Dealing with high-dimensional or continuous variables, which are common in LLM model parameters, can make this task extremely difficult (Salakhutdinov, 2009). To overcome this challenge, researchers often employ approximation methods to make the process more manageable.

For interested readers, the update of our beliefs about model parameters ‘w’ using Bayes’ rule can be represented mathematically as:

P(w|X, Y) = (P(Y|X, w) * P(w)) / P(Y|X)

In this equation, P(w|X, Y), the posterior distribution, represents the updated belief about the model parameters ‘w’ given the observed data (X, Y). P(w) is the prior distribution representing our initial beliefs about the model parameters. P(Y|X) acts as a normalization constant obtained through the aforementioned marginalization.

It’s important to note that AI and LLM development differ from traditional scenarios where Bayesian principles are developed and applied.

Firstly, the process of data collection differs between traditional Bayesian scenarios and training LLMs. In traditional Bayesian scenarios, data is gradually accumulated over time. However, when training LLMs, we actively and intentionally gather a substantial amount of data. This deliberate data collection leads to a posterior distribution that becomes sharply focused on a specific set of model parameters. This supports the prevalent practice in LLM training of identifying the best possible set of model parameters, rather than averaging over multiple sets.

Secondly, while the pursuit of finding the best possible model parameters might seem reminiscent of frequentist approaches, it is worth noting that AI training heavily relies on regularization techniques such as dropout. Dropout can be seen as a form of applying prior beliefs or assumptions to the model parameters. Regularization helps prevent overfitting and encourages the model to generalize well to unseen data. In this sense, the incorporation of regularization techniques brings AI training closer to the Bayesian camp, as prior beliefs play a role in shaping the learned model parameters.

Thirdly, the evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) is a complex process that harmoniously blends creative insights, engineering acumen, and empirical experimentation. The emergence of innovative neural network architectures, such as the Transformer, which forms the backbone of LLMs, frequently outweighs updating the posterior distribution within a predetermined structure. It’s imperative to distinguish between the roles of human reasoning agents and machines, a distinction that can sometimes blur for advocates of marginalization.

In summary, training LLMs requires striking a delicate balance between updating beliefs about model parameters and considering the dynamic and creative nature of the development process. It represents an intriguing convergence of probabilistic reasoning, data-driven approaches, and human ingenuity, continuously advancing the capabilities of LLMs.

Conclusion

In this exploration, we have delved into the intriguing realm of Large Language Models (LLMs), advanced AI systems that are revolutionizing our comprehension of probabilistic reasoning. These systems challenge the conventional dichotomy between Bayesian and frequentist perspectives, illustrating that these two approaches to understanding probabilities are not as distinct as we once thought.

We have touched upon the notion of self-reference in the development of LLMs, and how the Maximum Entropy Principle (MEP) can assist us in avoiding the pitfall of infinite regression. We have observed how LLMs, with their remarkable linguistic abilities, fit into both the Bayesian and frequentist viewpoints, and how they might aid us in finding a middle ground between these two methodologies.

We have discussed how LLMs incorporate prior beliefs to interpret new data, a feature that aligns with the Bayesian approach. However, we have also pointed out that LLMs, much like our own minds, transcend the automatic application of Bayes’ rule.

In conclusion, this exploration opens up new possibilities beyond the traditional boundaries of the Bayesian vs. frequentist debate. The Maximum Entropy Principle (MEP) enables frequentists to form objective beliefs without relying solely on empirical studies, while Bayesians can embrace the role of human reasoning without strictly adhering to the application of Bayes’ rule. This broader perspective allows us to gain a deeper understanding of the capabilities and limitations of LLMs, as well as our own capacities as reasoning entities.

References

1. Ben-Gal, I. (2008). Bayesian Networks. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Quality and Reliability. DOI: 10.1002/9780470061572.eqr089
2. Betz, G., & Richardson, K. (2023). Probabilistic coherence, logical consistency, and Bayesian learning: Neural language models as epistemic agents. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281372
3. Calin-Jageman, R. J., & Cumming, G. (2019). The New Statistics for Better Science: Ask How Much, How Uncertain, and What Else Is Known. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2018.1518266
4. Fiorillo, C. D. (2020). Beyond Bayes: On the Need for a Unified and Jaynesian Definition of Probability and Information within Neuroscience. PLoS ONE, 15(6), e0281372. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281372
5. Fornacon-Wood, I., Mistry, H., Johnson-Hart, C., Faivre-Finn, C., O’Connor, J. T., & Price, G. J. (2022). Understanding the Differences Between Bayesian and Frequentist Statistics. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.12.011
6. Gigerenzer, G. (1991). From tools to theories: A heuristic of discovery in cognitive psychology. Psychological Review, 98(2), 254. DOI: 10.1037/0033–295x.98.2.254
7. Gigerenzer, G., & Marewski, J. N. (2015). Surrogate Science. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314547522
8. Greenland, S., & Poole, C. (2013). Living with P Values. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1097/ede.0b013e3182785741
9. Jaynes, E. T. (2003). Probability Theory: The Logic of Science. Cambridge University Press.
10. Lee, M. D. (2008). Three case studies in the Bayesian analysis of cognitive models. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(1), 1–15. DOI: 10.3758/pbr.15.1.1
11. Littlewood, B., & Wright, D. (1997). Some conservative stopping rules for the operational testing of safety critical software. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1109/32.637384
12. Mitra, K., Zaslavsky, A., & Åhlund, C. (2015). Context-Aware QoE Modelling, Measurement, and Prediction in Mobile Computing Systems. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing. DOI: 10.1109/tmc.2013.155
13. Myung, I. J., & Pitt, M. A. (1997). Applying Occam’s razor in modeling cognition: A Bayesian approach. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. DOI: 10.3758/bf03210778
14. Plummer, M. (2008). Penalized loss functions for Bayesian model comparison. Biostatistics. DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxm049
15. Polson, N.G., & Sokolov, V. (2017). Deep Learning: A Bayesian Perspective. Bayesian Analysis. DOI: 10.1214/17-ba1082
16. Sainani, K. L., Lohse, K. R., Jones, P. W., & Vickers, A. J. (2019). Magnitude-based Inference is not Bayesian and is not a valid method of inference. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. DOI: 10.1111/sms.13491
17. Salakhutdinov, R. (2009). Learning Deep Generative Models. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-statistics-010814–020120
18. Trafimow, D. (2017). Using the Coefficient of Confidence to Make the Philosophical Switch From A Posteriori to A Priori Inferential Statistics. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164416667977
19. Wu, L., & Zhu, Z. (2023). Towards Understanding Generalization of Deep Learning: Perspective of Loss Landscapes. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371
20. Gelman, A. (2008). Objections to Bayesian statistics. Bayesian Analysis, 3(3). DOI: 10.1214/08-BA318.
21. Xie, S. M., Raghunathan, A., Liang, P., & Ma, T. (2021). An Explanation of In-context Learning as Implicit Bayesian Inference. ArXiv. /abs/2111.02080

Beyond the Bayesian vs. Frequentist Debate in the Advent of Large Language Models was originally published in GoPenAI on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.