Can Large Language Models Follow Concept Annotation Guidelines? A Case Study on Scientific and Financial Domains

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.08704v2
• Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 03:48:35 GMT
• Title: Can Large Language Models Follow Concept Annotation Guidelines? A Case Study on Scientific and Financial Domains
• Authors: Marcio Fonseca, Shay B. Cohen,
• Abstract summary: We examine the capacity of instruction-tuned language models to follow in-context concept guidelines for sentence labeling tasks. Our results show that although concept definitions consistently help in task performance, only the larger models have limited ability to work under counterfactual contexts.
• Score: 19.814974042343028
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Although large language models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable capacity to leverage in-context demonstrations, it is still unclear to what extent they can learn new concepts or facts from ground-truth labels. To address this question, we examine the capacity of instruction-tuned LLMs to follow in-context concept guidelines for sentence labeling tasks. We design guidelines that present different types of factual and counterfactual concept definitions, which are used as prompts for zero-shot sentence classification tasks. Our results show that although concept definitions consistently help in task performance, only the larger models (with 70B parameters or more) have limited ability to work under counterfactual contexts. Importantly, only proprietary models such as GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 can recognize nonsensical guidelines, which we hypothesize is due to more sophisticated alignment methods. Finally, we find that Falcon-180B-chat is outperformed by Llama-2-70B-chat is most cases, which indicates that careful fine-tuning is more effective than increasing model scale. Altogether, our simple evaluation method reveals significant gaps in concept understanding between the most capable open-source language models and the leading proprietary APIs.

Related papers

• CoLLEGe: Concept Embedding Generation for Large Language Models [12.812113254812028]
  CoLLEGe is a meta-learning framework capable of generating flexible embeddings for new concepts. We design a series of tasks to test new concept learning in challenging real-world scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-22T17:26:05Z)
• Fine-tuning Language Models for Factuality [96.5203774943198]
  Large pre-trained language models (LLMs) have led to their widespread use, sometimes even as a replacement for traditional search engines. Yet language models are prone to making convincing but factually inaccurate claims, often referred to as 'hallucinations' In this work, we fine-tune language models to be more factual, without human labeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T18:59:15Z)
• Interpreting Pretrained Language Models via Concept Bottlenecks [55.47515772358389]
  Pretrained language models (PLMs) have made significant strides in various natural language processing tasks. The lack of interpretability due to their black-box'' nature poses challenges for responsible implementation. We propose a novel approach to interpreting PLMs by employing high-level, meaningful concepts that are easily understandable for humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T20:41:18Z)
• Simple Linguistic Inferences of Large Language Models (LLMs): Blind Spots and Blinds [59.71218039095155]
  We evaluate language understanding capacities on simple inference tasks that most humans find trivial. We target (i) grammatically-specified entailments, (ii) premises with evidential adverbs of uncertainty, and (iii) monotonicity entailments. The models exhibit moderate to low performance on these evaluation sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:41:09Z)
• EXnet: Efficient In-context Learning for Data-less Text classification [0.0]
  We present EXnet, a model specifically designed to perform in-context learning without limitations on the number of examples. We argue that in-context learning is an effective method to increase task accuracy, and providing examples facilitates cross-task generalization. With extensive experiments, we show that even our smallest model (15M parameters) generalizes to several unseen classification tasks and domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T01:40:57Z)
• Can LLMs facilitate interpretation of pre-trained language models? [18.77022630961142]
  We propose using a large language model, ChatGPT, as an annotator to enable fine-grained interpretation analysis of pre-trained language models. We discover latent concepts within pre-trained language models by applying agglomerative hierarchical clustering over contextualized representations. Our findings demonstrate that ChatGPT produces accurate and semantically richer annotations compared to human-annotated concepts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T18:03:13Z)
• Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory [64.71038763708161]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led to a series of breakthroughs in natural language processing (NLP) What further sets these models apart is the massive amounts of world knowledge they internalize during pretraining. How the model's world knowledge interacts with the factual information presented in the context remains under explored.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-09T18:58:29Z)
• Language Model Pre-Training with Sparse Latent Typing [66.75786739499604]
  We propose a new pre-training objective, Sparse Latent Typing, which enables the model to sparsely extract sentence-level keywords with diverse latent types. Experimental results show that our model is able to learn interpretable latent type categories in a self-supervised manner without using any external knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-23T00:37:08Z)
• Analyzing the Limits of Self-Supervision in Handling Bias in Language [52.26068057260399]
  We evaluate how well language models capture the semantics of four tasks for bias: diagnosis, identification, extraction and rephrasing. Our analyses indicate that language models are capable of performing these tasks to widely varying degrees across different bias dimensions, such as gender and political affiliation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-16T05:36:08Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.