Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
433 lines (299 loc) · 21.8 KB

profunctor_llm_compositions.md

File metadata and controls

433 lines (299 loc) · 21.8 KB

Profunctor Optics for LLM Function Composition: From Theory to Implementation

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Theoretical Foundations
  3. Implementation Evolution
  4. Final Design: Full Profunctor Implementation
  5. Theoretical Implications
  6. Practical Examples and Case Studies
  7. Future Directions
  8. Conclusion
  9. References

Introduction

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs), such as GPT-4, has opened new horizons in computational linguistics and software development. These models exhibit remarkable abilities to generate human-like text, perform complex reasoning, and even write code. However, leveraging LLMs for structured and type-safe computations remains a challenge due to their statistical nature and the inherent variability in their outputs.

On the other hand, functional programming paradigms, particularly in languages like Haskell, offer powerful abstractions for composing functions, ensuring type safety, and manipulating complex data structures through concepts like profunctor optics and lenses. By integrating these functional programming principles with LLMs, we can create a framework that enables the composition of functions implemented by LLMs in a type-safe and reliable manner.

This document explores the theoretical foundations, implementation evolution, and practical applications of combining profunctor optics with LLM function composition. We delve into how causal states and typed processes from computational mechanics can be linked with profunctor theory to model LLMs' internal workings. Furthermore, we present a detailed implementation that demonstrates how to maintain type safety and composability when working with LLMs, ultimately providing a robust foundation for building sophisticated, type-safe systems that leverage LLM capabilities.

Theoretical Foundations

2.1 Initial Insights

Our journey began with the convergence of insights from two key theoretical frameworks:

  1. Composing Functions Implemented by LLMs via Structured Generation: This framework introduces the use of profunctors for composing functions implemented by LLMs, addressing the challenges of type mismatches and schema variations in LLM outputs.

  2. Typed Processes: This theory explains how LLMs develop abstract computation abilities through the emergence of causal states based on predictive equivalence classes. It provides a mathematical foundation for understanding the internal structures that enable LLMs to perform complex computations.

The breakthrough insight was realizing that these two frameworks could be combined. LLMs implicitly implement potentially long compositions of functions and their profunctors through their internal causal state transitions. By modeling these transitions using profunctor optics, we can harness the LLMs' capabilities while maintaining type safety and composability.

2.2 Core Theoretical Elements

2.2.1 Profunctors

A profunctor is a generalization of a function that is contravariant in its input and covariant in its output. In category theory, a profunctor from category \( \mathcal{C} \) to category \( \mathcal{D} \) is a functor from the product of \( \mathcal{C} \) and the opposite of \( \mathcal{D} \) to the category of sets:

[ \text{Profunctor} : \mathcal{C} \times \mathcal{D}^{op} \to \mathbf{Set} ]

In Haskell, the Profunctor type class is defined as:

class Profunctor p where
  dimap :: (a' -> a) -> (b -> b') -> p a b -> p a' b'
  • Contravariant in Input (a' -> a): Allows pre-processing of the input before it's consumed by the profunctor.
  • Covariant in Output (b -> b'): Allows post-processing of the output after it's produced by the profunctor.

Profunctors are powerful tools for modeling bidirectional data transformations, making them suitable for composing functions over complex and potentially mismatched data types.

2.2.2 Causal States and Typed Processes

Causal states arise from computational mechanics and are defined as equivalence classes of histories leading to identical predictive futures. In the context of LLMs:

  • Predictive Equivalence: Two histories are predictively equivalent if they result in the same distribution over future tokens.
  • Causal States as Types: These equivalence classes can be viewed as types, encapsulating all relevant information for prediction.

Typed Processes are stochastic processes where each history is assigned a type based on its causal state. This framework provides a mathematical foundation for understanding how statistical prediction can lead to abstract computation, bridging the gap between statistical learning and symbolic reasoning.

2.2.3 Type Safety in LLM Compositions

Type safety ensures that functions operate on compatible data types, preventing runtime errors and unexpected behaviors. In the context of composing LLM functions:

  • Schema Validation: Using JSON schemas to define input and output types for LLM functions.
  • Type Mappings: Implementing mappings between different types to handle schema variations.
  • Profunctor Composition: Utilizing profunctor optics to adapt input and output types, maintaining type safety throughout the composition chain.

By integrating profunctors with the concept of causal states, we can model LLMs' internal state transitions as type-safe compositions of functions.

Implementation Evolution

3.1 Base Implementation

Our initial implementation aimed to create an orchestrator capable of handling multiple LLM clients and facilitating structured, type-safe interactions. The key features included:

  • Support for Multiple LLM Clients: Including OpenAI, Anthropic, vLLM, and LiteLLM.
  • Structured Tools with JSON Schemas: Defining inputs and outputs using JSON schemas for clarity and validation.
  • Type Validation: Using libraries like pydantic and SQLModel for data validation and type enforcement.
  • Parallel Request Processing: Enabling efficient handling of multiple requests to LLMs.

This base implementation provided a foundation but lacked advanced mechanisms for handling type mismatches and complex compositions.

3.2 Introducing Typed Threads

To enhance the orchestrator's capabilities, we introduced the concept of typed threads:

class ComposableThread(ChatThread):
    thread_type: str
    valid_next_types: List[str]
  • thread_type: Represents the type of the thread or function.
  • valid_next_types: Specifies which types can follow in the composition chain.

This allowed for basic type checking when composing functions but did not capture the full flexibility and power of profunctor optics.

3.3 Incorporating Lenses and Optics

To better handle nested structures and focus on specific fields within data, we incorporated lenses and optics:

class JsonLens:
    input_path: List[str]
    output_path: List[str]
    input_schema: Dict[str, Any]
    output_schema: Dict[str, Any]
  • Lenses: Provide a way to focus on a part of a data structure, allowing for both getting and setting values in an immutable fashion.
  • Optics: Generalize lenses and include other abstractions like prisms and traversals, enabling more complex data manipulations.

This addition improved our ability to manipulate structured data but still lacked explicit mechanisms for adapting types during function composition.

3.4 Implementing Type Mappings

Recognizing the need for explicit type transformations, we introduced type mappings:

class TypeMapping:
    input_type_name: str
    output_type_name: str
    input_path: List[str]
    output_path: List[str]
  • Purpose: Define how to map input types to output types, specifying the paths within the data structures where transformations occur.
  • Benefit: Made composition rules clearer and allowed for more precise control over data transformations.

Despite these improvements, our implementation did not fully capture the behavior and advantages of profunctor optics.

Final Design: Full Profunctor Implementation

4.1 Profunctor Mappings in Practice

The key breakthrough was implementing explicit covariant and contravariant mappings using profunctor optics, enabling flexible and type-safe composition of LLM functions even when schemas do not match exactly.

4.1.1 Covariant and Contravariant Mappings

We defined a ProfunctorMapping class to encapsulate these mappings:

class ProfunctorMapping:
    covariant_map: Dict[str, str]      # Forward mapping (Output transformation)
    contravariant_map: Dict[str, str]  # Reverse mapping (Input transformation)
  • Contravariant Mapping (contravariant_map): Adapts the input data to match the expected input type of the LLM function.
  • Covariant Mapping (covariant_map): Adapts the LLM function's output to match the required output type for subsequent functions.

4.1.2 Implementing dimap for LLM Functions

We implemented the dimap function for our ProfunctorTool class to handle the transformation:

class ProfunctorTool(Tool):
    mapping: ProfunctorMapping

    def dimap(self,
              pre: Dict[str, str],
              post: Dict[str, str]) -> 'ProfunctorTool':
        """Profunctor dimap implementation"""

        # Adapt input types (contravariant)
        new_contravariant = {
            k: self.mapping.contravariant_map.get(pre[k], pre[k])
            for k in pre.keys()
        }

        # Adapt output types (covariant)
        new_covariant = {
            post.get(k, k): v
            for k, v in self.mapping.covariant_map.items()
        }

        return ProfunctorTool(
            mapping=ProfunctorMapping(
                covariant_map=new_covariant,
                contravariant_map=new_contravariant
            )
        )
  • pre: Represents the input type adjustments (contravariant).
  • post: Represents the output type adjustments (covariant).
  • Functionality: dimap creates a new ProfunctorTool with adjusted mappings, allowing us to compose functions even when their input and output types do not match exactly.

4.2 LLM-Driven Mapping Discovery

4.2.1 Dynamic Type Transformation

We leveraged the capabilities of LLMs to dynamically discover valid profunctor mappings between types:

class LlmProfunctorDiscovery:
    async def discover_mapping(self,
                               pre_types: Dict[str, str],
                               post_types: Dict[str, str],
                               llm_thread: ChatThread) -> ProfunctorMapping:
        """Use LLM to discover valid type mappings"""
        # LLM prompt to find mappings
        prompt = f"""
        Given input types {pre_types} and desired output types {post_types},
        generate a mapping that transforms inputs to outputs.
        """

        # Invoke LLM to get the mapping
        response = await llm_thread.generate(prompt)
        mapping = parse_mapping_response(response)

        return mapping
  • LLM as a Meta-Tool: Using the LLM not just for data transformations but to discover how to transform types between functions.
  • Dynamic Adaptation: Enables the system to handle new types and schemas without predefined mappings.

4.2.2 Maintaining Type Safety Through Profunctor Laws

By adhering to the profunctor laws, we ensure that type safety is maintained during composition:

  1. Identity Law: Composing with identity functions does not change the profunctor.
  2. Composition Law: The order of composition matters and is associative.

These laws guarantee that our transformations are consistent and that the composed functions behave predictably.

Theoretical Implications

5.1 Relationship to Original Theories

5.1.1 Integration with Profunctor Theory

Our implementation realizes the theoretical framework of composing functions using profunctor optics in a practical setting:

  • Bidirectional Data Transformation: Profunctors allow us to adapt both inputs and outputs, essential for composing LLM functions with varying schemas.
  • Function Composition: By implementing dimap, we can compose functions while handling type mismatches gracefully.

5.1.2 Connection to Typed Processes

The use of LLMs to discover valid mappings aligns with the concept of typed processes:

  • Causal States as Types: The LLM's internal representations act as types, capturing all necessary information for prediction.
  • Predictive Equivalence: The mappings respect the predictive structure of the data, ensuring that transformations lead to valid computational states.
  • Abstract Computation Emergence: Through this framework, LLMs perform computations that go beyond pattern matching, engaging in reasoning about type transformations.

5.2 Novel Contributions

Our work presents several novel contributions:

  1. LLM-Discovered Mappings: Utilizing LLMs to find valid profunctor transformations dynamically, enabling flexible and adaptive composition of functions.
  2. Dynamic Type Safety: Maintaining rigorous type safety through discovered mappings and adherence to profunctor laws, even in the face of schema variations.
  3. Compositional Reasoning: Enabling complex chains of typed transformations, where each function can be composed with others regardless of initial type mismatches.

Practical Examples and Case Studies

6.1 Composing LLM Functions with Profunctors

Example Scenario:

  • Function A: Extracts user information from raw text and outputs a UserProfile schema.
  • Function B: Augments the UserProfile with additional data, outputting an EnhancedUserProfile.
  • Challenge: The output schema of Function A does not match the input schema expected by Function B.

Solution Using Profunctors:

  1. Define Profunctor Mappings:

    mapping_A = ProfunctorMapping(
    covariant_map={'UserProfile': 'EnhancedUserProfile'},
    contravariant_map={'RawText': 'FormattedText'}
)

  2. Implement dimap for Function A:

    function_A = ProfunctorTool(mapping=mapping_A)
adapted_function_A = function_A.dimap(
    pre={'RawText': 'FormattedText'},
    post={'UserProfile': 'EnhancedUserProfile'}
)

  3. Compose Functions:

    composed_function = function_B . adapted_function_A

  4. Execute Composition:

    • Invoke composed_function with the appropriate input.
    • The profunctor mappings ensure that types are correctly adapted between functions.

6.2 Error Handling and Type Validation

To handle potential errors during type transformations:

  • Monadic Error Handling: Use monads like Either or Maybe to represent computations that may fail.
  • Validation Functions: Implement functions that validate data against schemas before and after transformations.

Example:

def validate_user_profile(data: Dict[str, Any]) -> Either[ValidationError, UserProfile]:
    try:
        profile = UserProfile(**data)
        return Right(profile)
    except ValidationError as e:
        return Left(e)

# Using in composition
result = (function_B . adapted_function_A)(input_data)
if isinstance(result, Left):
    handle_error(result.value)
else:
    process_result(result.value)

6.3 Advanced Composition Patterns

Higher-Order Profunctors:

  • Definition: Profunctors that take other profunctors as parameters, enabling more complex transformations.
  • Application: Model functions that operate on functions, such as LLMs generating new functions dynamically.

Isomorphisms and Bidirectional Transformations:

  • Isomorphisms: Define reversible transformations between types.
  • Use Case: When two schemas represent the same data differently, an isomorphism can convert data back and forth without loss.

Example:

class SchemaIsomorphism:
    def to_schema_B(data: SchemaA) -> SchemaB:
        # Transformation logic
        return schema_b_data

    def to_schema_A(data: SchemaB) -> SchemaA:
        # Reverse transformation logic
        return schema_a_data

Future Directions

7.1 Implementation Extensions

  • Higher-Order Profunctors: Implementing and utilizing higher-order profunctors for even more flexible function compositions.
  • Enhanced Lens Operations: Developing more sophisticated optics, such as traversals and prisms, to handle complex data manipulations.
  • Caching of Discovered Mappings: Storing frequently used mappings for efficiency and to reduce reliance on real-time LLM computations.
  • Optimization of Composition Chains: Analyzing and optimizing the composition of functions for performance and resource utilization.

7.2 Theoretical Developments

  • Formal Proofs of Type Safety: Establishing rigorous proofs to confirm that the implementation maintains type safety under all compositions.
  • Analysis of LLM-Discovered Mappings: Studying the properties of mappings discovered by LLMs to understand their generality and limitations.
  • Connection to Categorical Semantics: Exploring deeper connections between our framework and categorical theories to enrich the theoretical foundations.
  • Emergent Compositional Patterns: Investigating patterns that emerge from composing functions using profunctor optics and how they relate to known functional programming paradigms.

Conclusion

The integration of profunctor optics with LLM function composition presents a powerful framework for building sophisticated, type-safe systems that leverage the capabilities of modern language models. By modeling LLM functions as profunctors and utilizing the LLMs themselves to discover valid type mappings, we achieve:

  1. Rigorous Type Safety: Ensuring that all compositions adhere to defined type constraints, preventing runtime errors and inconsistencies.
  2. Flexible Composition: Allowing functions to be composed even when their input and output schemas do not match exactly, thanks to dynamic type adaptations.
  3. Leveraging LLM Capabilities: Utilizing LLMs not just for data processing but also for meta-computations like discovering type transformations.
  4. Scalability to Complex Structures: Handling nested and intricate data structures through lenses and advanced optics, making the framework applicable to real-world, complex applications.

This framework bridges the gap between the statistical nature of LLMs and the formal rigor of functional programming, providing a foundation for future developments in both theoretical and practical domains. It opens avenues for creating intelligent systems that are both powerful and reliable, capable of performing complex computations while maintaining formal guarantees about their behavior.

References

  1. Bartosz Milewski, Category Theory for Programmers.
  2. John C. Mitchell, Foundations for Programming Languages.
  3. Jeremy Gibbons, An Introduction to Profunctors.
  4. Crutchfield, J. P., & Young, K., Inferring Statistical Complexity, Physical Review Letters, 1989.
  5. Barnett, N., & Crutchfield, J. P., Computational Mechanics of Input–Output Processes: Structured Transformations and the ε-Transducer, Journal of Statistical Physics, 2015.
  6. Shalizi, C. R., & Crutchfield, J. P., Computational Mechanics: Pattern and Prediction, Structure and Simplicity, Journal of Statistical Physics, 2001.
  7. Edward Kmett, Lens Library Documentation, Hackage.
  8. OpenAI Codex, Model Capabilities and Limitations, OpenAI Documentation.

This expanded document integrates theoretical insights, practical implementations, and future directions, providing a comprehensive overview of profunctor optics for LLM function composition. By combining concepts from category theory, type theory, and computational mechanics, we have established a robust framework that advances our ability to harness the full potential of Large Language Models in a structured and type-safe manner.