Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Mind the instructions: a holistic evaluation of consistency and interactions in prompt-based learning

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

arxiv 2310.13486 v1 pith:B2AVNQO5 submitted 2023-10-20 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords modelsfactorsdifferentevaluationholisticpredictionsresultsadapted
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Finding the best way of adapting pre-trained language models to a task is a big challenge in current NLP. Just like the previous generation of task-tuned models (TT), models that are adapted to tasks via in-context-learning (ICL) are robust in some setups but not in others. Here, we present a detailed analysis of which design choices cause instabilities and inconsistencies in LLM predictions. First, we show how spurious correlations between input distributions and labels -- a known issue in TT models -- form only a minor problem for prompted models. Then, we engage in a systematic, holistic evaluation of different factors that have been found to influence predictions in a prompting setup. We test all possible combinations of a range of factors on both vanilla and instruction-tuned (IT) LLMs of different scale and statistically analyse the results to show which factors are the most influential, interactive or stable. Our results show which factors can be used without precautions and which should be avoided or handled with care in most settings.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools