Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Did You Read the Instructions? Rethinking the Effectiveness of Task Definitions in Instruction 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 2306.01150 v1 pith:HEVUYQTA submitted 2023-06-01 cs.CL cs.AI

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

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance in following natural language instructions to solve unseen tasks. However, it remains unclear whether models truly understand task definitions and whether the human-written definitions are optimal. In this paper, we systematically study the role of task definitions in instruction learning. We first conduct an ablation analysis informed by human annotations to understand which parts of a task definition are most important, and find that model performance only drops substantially when removing contents describing the task output, in particular label information. Next, we propose an automatic algorithm to compress task definitions to a minimal supporting set of tokens, and find that 60\% of tokens can be removed while maintaining or even improving model performance. Based on these results, we propose two strategies to help models better leverage task instructions: (1) providing only key information for tasks in a common structured format, and (2) adding a meta-tuning stage to help the model better understand the definitions. With these two strategies, we achieve a 4.2 Rouge-L improvement over 119 unseen test tasks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Model Context Protocol (MCP) Tool Descriptions Are Smelly! Towards Improving AI Agent Efficiency with Augmented MCP Tool Descriptions

    cs.SE 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Most MCP tool descriptions (97.1%) contain quality smells, and augmenting them improves agent success by a median of 5.85 percentage points at a 67.46% increase in execution steps.

  2. FTP: A Fine-grained Token-wise Pruner for Large Language Models via Token Routing

    cs.CL 2024-12 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    A token-wise pruner with a learned router and a genetic-algorithm sparsity scheduler claims near-lossless LLM inference at 22-40% token sparsity.

Pith tools