Architectural and Inferential Inductive Biases For Exchangeable Sequence Modeling
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Autoregressive models have emerged as a powerful framework for modeling exchangeable sequences - i.i.d. observations when conditioned on some latent factor - enabling direct modeling of uncertainty from missing data (rather than a latent). Motivated by the critical role posterior inference plays as a subroutine in decision-making (e.g., active learning, bandits), we study the inferential and architectural inductive biases that are most effective for exchangeable sequence modeling. For the inference stage, we highlight a fundamental limitation of the prevalent single-step generation approach: inability to distinguish between epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty. Instead, a long line of works in Bayesian statistics advocates for multi-step autoregressive generation; we demonstrate this "correct approach" enables superior uncertainty quantification that translates into better performance on downstream decision-making tasks. This naturally leads to the next question: which architectures are best suited for multi-step inference? We identify a subtle yet important gap between recently proposed Transformer architectures for exchangeable sequences (Muller et al., 2022; Nguyen & Grover, 2022; Ye & Namkoong, 2024), and prove that they in fact cannot guarantee exchangeability despite introducing significant computational overhead. We illustrate our findings using controlled synthetic settings, demonstrating how custom architectures can significantly underperform standard causal masks, underscoring the need for new architectural innovations.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Mar 2025.
Builds on
17 of 33 references.
References · 17
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
- 2017A Tutorial on Thompson Samplingcited by 433
- 2021Transformers Can Do Bayesian Inferencecited by 360
- 2022TabLLM: Few-shot Classification of Tabular Data with Large Language Modelscited by 277
- 2022Transformer Neural Processes: Uncertainty-Aware Meta Learning Via Sequence Modelingcited by 127
- 2024Large Language Models Can Automatically Engineer Features for Few-Shot Tabular Learningcited by 81
- 2024Large Scale Transfer Learning for Tabular Data via Language Modelingcited by 76
- 2024Making Pre-trained Language Models Great on Tabular Predictioncited by 57
- 2024Is In-Context Learning in Large Language Models Bayesian? A Martingale Perspectivecited by 57
- 2021Martingale posterior distributionscited by 45
- 2023TabuLa: Harnessing Language Models for Tabular Data Synthesiscited by 42
5 more
- 2021From Predictions to Decisions: The Importance of Joint Predictive Distributionscited by 29
- 2021The Neural Testbed: Evaluating Joint Predictionscited by 22
- 2015On recursive Bayesian predictive distributionscited by 7
- 2024Exchangeable Sequence Models Quantify Uncertainty Over Latent Conceptscited by 7
- 2021Bayesian predictive inference without a priorcited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
2 papers.