REVIEW 12 cited by
How Far Can Camels Go? Exploring the State of Instruction Tuning on Open Resources
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
How Far Can Camels Go? Exploring the State of Instruction Tuning on Open Resources
read the original abstract
In this work we explore recent advances in instruction-tuning language models on a range of open instruction-following datasets. Despite recent claims that open models can be on par with state-of-the-art proprietary models, these claims are often accompanied by limited evaluation, making it difficult to compare models across the board and determine the utility of various resources. We provide a large set of instruction-tuned models from 6.7B to 65B parameters in size, trained on 12 instruction datasets ranging from manually curated (e.g., OpenAssistant) to synthetic and distilled (e.g., Alpaca) and systematically evaluate them on their factual knowledge, reasoning, multilinguality, coding, and open-ended instruction following abilities through a collection of automatic, model-based, and human-based metrics. We further introduce T\"ulu, our best performing instruction-tuned model suite finetuned on a combination of high-quality open resources. Our experiments show that different instruction-tuning datasets can uncover or enhance specific skills, while no single dataset (or combination) provides the best performance across all evaluations. Interestingly, we find that model and human preference-based evaluations fail to reflect differences in model capabilities exposed by benchmark-based evaluations, suggesting the need for the type of systemic evaluation performed in this work. Our evaluations show that the best model in any given evaluation reaches on average 87% of ChatGPT performance, and 73% of GPT-4 performance, suggesting that further investment in building better base models and instruction-tuning data is required to close the gap. We release our instruction-tuned models, including a fully finetuned 65B T\"ulu, along with our code, data, and evaluation framework at https://github.com/allenai/open-instruct to facilitate future research.
Forward citations
Cited by 12 Pith papers
-
ORPO: Monolithic Preference Optimization without Reference Model
ORPO performs preference alignment during supervised fine-tuning via a monolithic odds ratio penalty, allowing 7B models to outperform larger state-of-the-art models on alignment benchmarks.
-
Self-Rewarding Language Models
Iterative self-rewarding via LLM-as-Judge in DPO training on Llama 2 70B improves instruction following and self-evaluation, outperforming GPT-4 on AlpacaEval 2.0.
-
Let the Target Select for Itself: Data Selection via Target-Aligned Paths
Target-aligned data selection via normalized endpoint loss drop on a validation-induced reference path achieves competitive performance with reduced computational overhead.
-
Inference Scaling Laws: An Empirical Analysis of Compute-Optimal Inference for Problem-Solving with Language Models
Empirical analysis shows scaling inference compute via strategies like tree search can be more efficient than scaling model parameters, with 7B models plus novel search outperforming 34B models.
-
A Roadmap to Pluralistic Alignment
The paper formalizes three types of pluralistic AI models and three benchmark classes, arguing that current alignment techniques may reduce rather than increase distributional pluralism.
-
Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Critique through Self-Reflection
Self-RAG trains LLMs to adaptively retrieve passages on demand and self-critique using reflection tokens, outperforming ChatGPT and retrieval-augmented Llama2 on QA, reasoning, and fact verification.
-
MAmmoTH: Building Math Generalist Models through Hybrid Instruction Tuning
MAmmoTH models trained via hybrid CoT-PoT instruction tuning on MathInstruct outperform prior open-source LLMs by 16-32% average accuracy on nine math datasets, reaching 33% and 44% on MATH for 7B and 34B scales.
-
Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena
GPT-4 as an LLM judge achieves over 80% agreement with human preferences on MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena, matching human agreement levels and providing a scalable evaluation method.
-
Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators
LLMs show strong position bias when scoring model outputs, allowing easy manipulation of rankings, but calibration with multiple evidence, position balancing, and selective human input reduces this bias to better matc...
-
Scaling Data-Constrained Language Models
Repeating training data up to 4 epochs yields negligible loss increase versus unique data for fixed compute, and a new scaling law accounts for the decaying value of repeated tokens and excess parameters.
-
PEFT-Factory: Unified Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning of Autoregressive Large Language Models
PEFT-Factory supplies a ready-to-use, extensible codebase that unifies 19 PEFT methods and evaluation pipelines for fine-tuning large autoregressive language models.
-
Large Language Models: A Survey
The paper surveys key large language models, their training methods, datasets, evaluation benchmarks, and future research directions in the field.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.