REVIEW 1 cited by
True Few-Shot Learning with Prompts -- A Real-World Perspective
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Prompt-based approaches are strong at few-shot learning. However, Perez et al. (2021) have recently cast doubt on their performance because they had difficulty getting good results in a "true" few-shot setting in which prompts and hyperparameters cannot be tuned on a dev set. In view of this, we conduct an extensive study of PET, a method that combines textual instructions with example-based finetuning. We show that, if correctly configured, PET performs strongly in a true few-shot setting, i.e., without a dev set. Crucial for this strong performance is PET's ability to intelligently handle multiple prompts. We then put our findings to a real-world test by running PET on RAFT, a benchmark of tasks taken directly from realistic NLP applications for which no labeled dev or test sets are available. PET achieves a new state of the art on RAFT and performs close to non-expert humans for 7 out of 11 tasks. These results demonstrate that prompt-based learners like PET excel at true few-shot learning and underpin our belief that learning from instructions will play an important role on the path towards human-like few-shot learning capabilities.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
An Empirically-grounded tool for Automatic Prompt Linting and Repair: A Case Study on Bias, Vulnerability, and Optimization in Developer Prompts
An automated linting and repair tool finds 3.46% of developer prompts biased, 10.75% injection-vulnerable, and improves a fraction of suboptimal prompts.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.