REVIEW 2 cited by
From Complex to Simple: Enhancing Multi-Constraint Complex Instruction Following Ability of Large Language Models
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
It is imperative for Large language models (LLMs) to follow instructions with elaborate requirements (i.e. Complex Instructions Following). Yet, it remains under-explored how to enhance the ability of LLMs to follow complex instructions with multiple constraints. To bridge the gap, we initially study what training data is effective in enhancing complex constraints following abilities. We found that training LLMs with instructions containing multiple constraints enhances their understanding of complex instructions, especially those with lower complexity levels. The improvement can even generalize to compositions of out-of-domain constraints. Additionally, we further propose methods addressing how to obtain and utilize the effective training data. Finally, we conduct extensive experiments to prove the effectiveness of our methods in terms of overall performance and training efficiency. We also demonstrate that our methods improve models' ability to follow instructions generally and generalize effectively across out-of-domain, in-domain, and adversarial settings, while maintaining general capabilities.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
ClusterUCB: Efficient Gradient-Based Data Selection for Targeted Fine-Tuning of LLMs
ClusterUCB uses gradient clustering plus a modified UCB bandit to match full-budget gradient influence data selection at a 20% computing budget.
-
STEER-BENCH: A Benchmark for Evaluating the Steerability of Large Language Models
STEER-BENCH is a Reddit-derived benchmark of 5,552 multiple-choice questions on which the best of 13 large language models scores near 65 percent, versus human experts near 81 percent.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.