A Closer Look at the Limitations of Instruction Tuning

Authors: Sreyan Ghosh, Chandra Kiran Reddy Evuru, Sonal Kumar, Ramaneswaran S, Deepali Aneja, Zeyu Jin, Ramani Duraiswami, Dinesh Manocha

Accepted at ICML 2024
License: CC BY 4.0

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2402.05119v4

  • Comprehensive Summary
  • Key points
  • Layman's Summary
  • Blog article
In this paper, the authors delve into the limitations of Instruction Tuning (IT) for Large Language Models (LLMs). IT is a process that involves training LLMs using instruction-response pairs to enhance their conversational abilities. Through rigorous experiments and detailed analysis, the study uncovers several failure models of IT. The findings reveal that Full-Parameter Fine-Tuning (LFT) does not scale effectively. Additionally, methods like Style Fine-Tuning (SFT) and pattern-copying can increase hallucinations in generated responses. Surprisingly, an LFT model outperforms various proposed methods in existing literature. As part of future work, the authors propose developing a formal framework to detect and mitigate hallucinations arising from SFT. They also suggest exploring novel IT methods that could potentially improve model performance beyond relying solely on pre-trained knowledge. However, the study acknowledges certain limitations such as focusing solely on open-domain instruction following and not exploring domain-specific fine-tuning or multi-modal language tasks. The impact of this research extends beyond artificial intelligence development as it emphasizes the need for more robust conversational agents with accurate and factual responses. By highlighting the constraints of current IT practices, the study encourages advancements in various sectors including education, customer service, and accessibility technologies. Furthermore, addressing ethical concerns related to misinformation stemming from hallucinations and knowledge degradation is crucial for domains where trust and accuracy are paramount like healthcare and news dissemination. Overall, this paper calls for further investigation into IT's limitations to inspire new directions in research focusing on understanding LLMs' fundamental workings rather than just superficial performance improvements. The insights provided aim to drive advancements towards more reliable conversational agents with enhanced capabilities across diverse applications.
AI-generated keywords: Instruction Tuning Large Language Models Conversational Abilities Limitations Hallucinations

AI-generated Key Points

  • Instruction Tuning (IT) for Large Language Models (LLMs) has limitations in enhancing conversational abilities.
  • Full-Parameter Fine-Tuning (LFT) does not scale effectively in improving LLMs.
  • Style Fine-Tuning (SFT) and pattern-copying methods can lead to increased hallucinations in generated responses.
  • An LFT model outperforms various proposed methods in existing literature.
  • Future work includes developing a formal framework to detect and mitigate hallucinations from SFT and exploring novel IT methods for improved model performance.
  • Limitations of the study include focusing solely on open-domain instruction following and not exploring domain-specific fine-tuning or multi-modal language tasks.
  • The research emphasizes the need for more robust conversational agents with accurate responses, impacting sectors like education, customer service, and accessibility technologies.
  • Addressing ethical concerns related to misinformation from hallucinations is crucial, especially in domains like healthcare and news dissemination.
  • The paper calls for further investigation into IT's limitations to inspire new research directions focusing on understanding LLMs' fundamental workings.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Abstract: Instruction Tuning (IT), the process of training large language models (LLMs) using instruction-response pairs, has emerged as the predominant method for transforming base pre-trained LLMs into open-domain conversational agents. While IT has achieved notable success and widespread adoption, its limitations and shortcomings remain underexplored. In this paper, through rigorous experiments and an in-depth analysis of the changes LLMs undergo through IT, we reveal various limitations of IT. In particular, we show that (1) IT fails to enhance knowledge or skills in LLMs. LoRA fine-tuning is limited to learning response initiation and style tokens, and full-parameter fine-tuning leads to knowledge degradation. (2) Copying response patterns from IT datasets derived from knowledgeable sources leads to a decline in response quality. (3) Full-parameter fine-tuning increases hallucination by inaccurately borrowing tokens from conceptually similar instances in the IT dataset for generating responses. (4) Popular methods to improve IT do not lead to performance improvements over a simple LoRA fine-tuned model. Our findings reveal that responses generated solely from pre-trained knowledge consistently outperform responses by models that learn any form of new knowledge from IT on open-source datasets. We hope the insights and challenges revealed in this paper inspire future work in related directions.

Submitted to arXiv on 03 Feb. 2024

Tools for this paper

Explain it differently 3 free rewrites left today
Export BibTeX · RIS (Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote) · Markdown (Notion, Obsidian) · Premium
Citation alerts Premium
Journal club Slides to present it Premium
For journalists Press kit and hype check Premium

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

Figures and plots

Ask about a figure by number or use its question button to request visual analysis. Up to two figures and four image panels per question. Values read from plots are approximate; check the original data.

AI assistant instructions?

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.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

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.