How Many Data Points is a Prompt Worth?

AI-generated keywords: Prompting Classification Data Efficiency Pretrained Models Human Bias

AI-generated Key Points

  • The paper explores the use of task-specific prompts versus generic model heads in fine-tuning pretrained models for classification.
  • Proponents of prompting argue that it provides a method for injecting task-specific guidance which is beneficial in low-data regimes.
  • The main benefit of prompting is data efficiency rather than compute efficiency.
  • Rigorous testing was conducted to compare prompted and head-based fine-tuning in equal conditions across many tasks and data sizes.
  • Prompting does indeed provide a benefit, and this benefit can be quantified per task.
  • Results show that prompting is often worth hundreds of data points on average across classification tasks.
  • The experiments were computationally intensive but carbon neutral due to running almost two thousand runs on a single Nvidia V100 GPU with each experiment taking under an hour.
  • There are inherent risks associated with introducing human biases into models through prompts and repeating biases already present within the language model.
  • Prompting mostly relies on the pretrained model in few-shot settings where human input is minimal.
  • The paper provides valuable insights into the benefits and limitations of using task-specific prompts versus generic model heads in fine-tuning pretrained models for classification tasks.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Teven Le Scao, Alexander M. Rush

NAACL HLT 2021
License: CC BY 4.0

Abstract: When fine-tuning pretrained models for classification, researchers either use a generic model head or a task-specific prompt for prediction. Proponents of prompting have argued that prompts provide a method for injecting task-specific guidance, which is beneficial in low-data regimes. We aim to quantify this benefit through rigorous testing of prompts in a fair setting: comparing prompted and head-based fine-tuning in equal conditions across many tasks and data sizes. By controlling for many sources of advantage, we find that prompting does indeed provide a benefit, and that this benefit can be quantified per task. Results show that prompting is often worth 100s of data points on average across classification tasks.

Submitted to arXiv on 15 Mar. 2021

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2103.08493v2

This paper explores the use of task-specific prompts versus generic model heads in fine-tuning pretrained models for classification. While proponents of prompting argue that it provides a method for injecting task-specific guidance which is beneficial in low-data regimes, the main benefit of prompting is data efficiency rather than compute efficiency. To quantify this benefit, the authors conducted rigorous testing of prompts in a fair setting by comparing prompted and head-based fine-tuning in equal conditions across many tasks and data sizes. By controlling for many sources of advantage, they found that prompting does indeed provide a benefit, and that this benefit can be quantified per task. Results show that prompting is often worth hundreds of data points on average across classification tasks. The experiments were computationally intensive but carbon neutral due to running almost two thousand runs on a single Nvidia V100 GPU with each experiment taking under an hour. The authors also highlighted the potential benefits of prompt completion in low-resource language applications. However, there are inherent risks associated with introducing human biases into models through prompts and repeating biases already present within the language model. Prompting mostly relies on the pretrained model in few-shot settings where human input is minimal. Overall, this paper provides valuable insights into the benefits and limitations of using task-specific prompts versus generic model heads in fine-tuning pretrained models for classification tasks.
Created on 19 May. 2023

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.