Search for: All records

Instruction fine-tuning has recently emerged as a promising approach for improving the zero-shot capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) on new tasks. This technique has shown particular strength in improving the performance of modestly sized LLMs, sometimes inducing performance competitive with much larger model variants. In this paper, we ask two questions: (1) How sensitive are instruction-tuned models to the particular phrasings of instructions, and, (2) How can we make them more robust to such natural language variation? To answer the former, we collect a set of 319 instructions manually written by NLP practitioners for over 80 unique tasks included in widely used benchmarks, and we evaluate the variance and average performance of these instructions as compared to instruction phrasings observed during instruction fine-tuning. We find that using novel (unobserved) but appropriate instruction phrasings consistently degrades model performance, sometimes substantially so. Further, such natural instructions yield a wide variance in downstream performance, despite their semantic equivalence. Put another way, instruction-tuned models are not especially robust to instruction re-phrasings. We propose a simple method to mitigate this issue by introducing soft prompt'' embedding parameters and optimizing these to maximize the similarity between representations of semantically equivalent instructions. We show that this method consistently improves the robustness of instruction-tuned models. 

The diversity of text can be measured beyond word-level features, however existing diversity evaluation focuses primarily on word-level features. Here we propose a method for evaluating diversity over syntactic features to characterize general repetition in models, beyond frequent n-grams. Specifically, we define syntactic templates (e.g., strings comprising parts-of-speech) and show that models tend to produce templated text in downstream tasks at a higher rate than what is found in human-reference textsWe find that most (76%) templates in model-generated text can be found in pre-training data (compared to only 35% of human-authored text), and are not overwritten during fine-tuning or alignment processes such as RLHF. The connection between templates in generated text and the pre-training data allows us to analyze syntactic templates in models where we do not have the pre-training data.We also find that templates as features are able to differentiate between models, tasks, and domains, and are useful for qualitatively evaluating common model constructions.Finally, we demonstrate the use of templates as a useful tool for analyzing style memorization of training data in LLMs. 

Large language models, particularly GPT-3, are able to produce high quality summaries of general domain news articles in few- and zero-shot settings. However, it is unclear if such models are similarly capable in more specialized domains such as biomedicine. In this paper we enlist domain experts (individuals with medical training) to evaluate summaries of biomedical articles generated by GPT-3, given no supervision. We consider both single- and multi-document settings. In the former, GPT-3 is tasked with generating regular and plain-language summaries of articles describing randomized controlled trials; in the latter, we assess the degree to which GPT-3 is able to synthesize evidence reported across a collection of articles. We design an annotation scheme for evaluating model outputs, with an emphasis on assessing the factual accuracy of generated summaries. We find that while GPT-3 is able to summarize and simplify single biomedical articles faithfully, it struggles to provide accurate aggregations of findings over multiple documents. We release all data, code, and annotations used in this work.