Evaluating the Robustness to Instructions of Large Language Models

AI-generated keywords: Instruction fine-tuning Large Language Models Robustness Performance Relation Extraction

AI-generated Key Points

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

  • Growing interest in Instruction fine-tuning to improve zero-shot capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs)
  • Impressive results in enhancing performance of moderately sized LLMs
  • Evaluation of robustness of instruction-tuned LLMs on familiar and unfamiliar tasks
  • Six models explored: Alpaca, Vicuna, WizardLM, Flan-T5-XL/XXL, T0++
  • Real-world relation extraction datasets used for analysis
  • Performance and robustness of models when following instructions discussed
  • Model's ability to handle unfamiliar instructions deteriorated, leading to poorer performance
  • Robustness for relation extraction (RE) instructions worse than question-answering (QA) instructions
  • FLAN-T5 model's performance improved with larger parameter sizes but still inferior for RE instruction compared to QA instruction
  • Instruction fine-tuning has potential for improving zero-shot capabilities in LLMs but challenges remain in handling unfamiliar instructions and maintaining robustness across tasks.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Yuansheng Ni, Sichao Jiang, Xinyu wu, Hui Shen, Yuli Zhou

In our study, erroneous data analysis inadvertently led to misleading outcomes. Incorrect variables were included, distorting results. This emphasizes the significance of robust data processing and analysis techniques in research

Abstract: Recently, Instruction fine-tuning has risen to prominence as a potential method for enhancing the zero-shot capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) on novel tasks. This technique has shown an exceptional ability to boost the performance of moderately sized LLMs, sometimes even reaching performance levels comparable to those of much larger model variants. The focus is on the robustness of instruction-tuned LLMs to seen and unseen tasks. We conducted an exploration of six models including Alpaca, Vicuna, WizardLM, and Traditional Task-oriented Models(Flan-T5-XL/XXL, T0++) using real-world relation extraction datasets as case studies. We carried out a comprehensive evaluation of these instruction-following LLMs which have been tuned based on open-domain instructions and task-oriented instructions. The main discussion is their performance and robustness towards instructions. We have observed that in most cases, the model's performance in dealing with unfamiliar instructions tends to worsen significantly, and the robustness of the model for RE instructions deteriorates compared to QA. Further, we discovered that up until a certain parameter size threshold (3B), the performance of the FLAN-T5 model improves as the parameter count increases. The robustness of different scales of FLAN-T5 models to RE instruction is worse than the robustness to QA instruction.

Submitted to arXiv on 28 Aug. 2023

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2308.14306v2

This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

Recently, there has been a growing interest in the use of Instruction fine-tuning as a means to improve the zero-shot capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) on new tasks. This technique has demonstrated impressive results in enhancing the performance of moderately sized LLMs, often achieving comparable performance levels to larger model variants. The main focus of this study is to evaluate the robustness of instruction-tuned LLMs when faced with both familiar and unfamiliar tasks. To conduct this evaluation, six models were explored: Alpaca, Vicuna, WizardLM and Traditional Task-oriented Models (Flan-T5-XL/XXL and T0++). Real-world relation extraction datasets were used as case studies for this analysis. The evaluation aimed to comprehensively assess these instruction-following LLMs that have been fine-tuned using open-domain instructions and task-oriented instructions. The primary discussion revolves around the performance and robustness of these models when following instructions. It was observed that in most cases, the model's ability to handle unfamiliar instructions significantly deteriorated, leading to poorer performance. Additionally, it was found that the robustness of the models for relation extraction (RE) instructions was worse compared to question-answering (QA) instructions. Furthermore, an interesting discovery was made regarding the FLAN-T5 model; its performance improved as the parameter count increased up until a certain threshold size (3B). However, despite this improvement in performance with larger parameter sizes, its robustness for RE instruction remained inferior compared to its robustness towards QA instruction. In conclusion, this study highlights the potential of Instruction fine-tuning for improving zero-shot capabilities in Large Language Models. However, it also emphasizes the challenges associated with handling unfamiliar instructions and maintaining robustness across different types of tasks. These findings contribute valuable insights into optimizing instruction-tuned LLMs for various applications.
Created on 19 Sep. 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.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

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.