REVIEW 3 cited by
Strategic Data Ordering: Enhancing Large Language Model Performance through Curriculum 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
read the original abstract
The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has improved text understanding and generation but poses challenges in computational resources. This study proposes a curriculum learning-inspired, data-centric training strategy that begins with simpler tasks and progresses to more complex ones, using criteria such as prompt length, attention scores, and loss values to structure the training data. Experiments with Mistral-7B (Jiang et al., 2023) and Gemma-7B (Team et al., 2024) models demonstrate that curriculum learning slightly improves performance compared to traditional random data shuffling. Notably, we observed that sorting data based on our proposed attention criteria generally led to better performance. This approach offers a sustainable method to enhance LLM performance without increasing model size or dataset volume, addressing scalability challenges in LLM training.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Estimating the Effects of Sample Training Orders for Large Language Models without Retraining
A framework using Taylor expansions and random projections estimates LLM performance under arbitrary training batch orders from one reference run.
-
A Survey of LLM $\times$ DATA
A comprehensive survey of the bidirectional links between LLMs and data management, organized as DATA4LLM and LLM4DATA with a new 'IaaS' data-quality framework.
-
Data Efficacy for Language Model Training
Ordering training data by a gradient-based score, using a folding scheme that interleaves multiple curriculum passes, improves small-scale LM accuracy by roughly 1.5 to 2 points on average benchmarks.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.