Paloma: A Benchmark for Evaluating Language Model Fit

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10523v1
• Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2023 19:12:45 GMT
• Title: Paloma: A Benchmark for Evaluating Language Model Fit
• Authors: Ian Magnusson, Akshita Bhagia, Valentin Hofmann, Luca Soldaini, Ananya Harsh Jha, Oyvind Tafjord, Dustin Schwenk, Evan Pete Walsh, Yanai Elazar, Kyle Lo, Dirk Groeneveld, Iz Beltagy, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Noah A. Smith, Kyle Richardson, Jesse Dodge
• Abstract summary: Language Model Assessment (Paloma) measures fit to 585 text domains. We populate our benchmark with results from baselines pretrained on popular corpora.
• Score: 114.63031978259467
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Language models (LMs) commonly report perplexity on monolithic data held out from training. Implicitly or explicitly, this data is composed of domains$\unicode{x2013}$varying distributions of language. Rather than assuming perplexity on one distribution extrapolates to others, Perplexity Analysis for Language Model Assessment (Paloma), measures LM fit to 585 text domains, ranging from nytimes.com to r/depression on Reddit. We invite submissions to our benchmark and organize results by comparability based on compliance with guidelines such as removal of benchmark contamination from pretraining. Submissions can also record parameter and training token count to make comparisons of Pareto efficiency for performance as a function of these measures of cost. We populate our benchmark with results from 6 baselines pretrained on popular corpora. In case studies, we demonstrate analyses that are possible with Paloma, such as finding that pretraining without data beyond Common Crawl leads to inconsistent fit to many domains.

Related papers

• DataComp-LM: In search of the next generation of training sets for language models [200.5293181577585]
  DataComp for Language Models (DCLM) is a testbed for controlled dataset experiments with the goal of improving language models. We provide a standardized corpus of 240T tokens extracted from Common Crawl, effective pretraining recipes based on the OpenLM framework, and a broad suite of 53 downstream evaluations. Participants in the DCLM benchmark can experiment with data curation strategies such as deduplication, filtering, and data mixing at model scales ranging from 412M to 7B parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T17:42:57Z)
• Data Similarity is Not Enough to Explain Language Model Performance [6.364065652816667]
  Similarity measures correlate with language model performance. Similarity metrics are not correlated with accuracy or even each other. This suggests that the relationship between pretraining data and downstream tasks is more complex than often assumed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T14:48:08Z)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)
• Does Manipulating Tokenization Aid Cross-Lingual Transfer? A Study on POS Tagging for Non-Standardized Languages [18.210880703295253]
  We finetune pretrained language models (PLMs) on seven languages from three different families. We analyze their zero-shot performance on closely related, non-standardized varieties. Overall, we find that the similarity between the percentage of words that get split into subwords in the source and target data is the strongest predictor for model performance on target data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-20T08:32:34Z)
• Rationale-Guided Few-Shot Classification to Detect Abusive Language [5.977278650516324]
  We propose RGFS (Rationale-Guided Few-Shot Classification) for abusive language detection. We introduce two rationale-integrated BERT-based architectures (the RGFS models) and evaluate our systems over five different abusive language datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-30T14:47:14Z)
• SMART: Sentences as Basic Units for Text Evaluation [48.5999587529085]
  In this paper, we introduce a new metric called SMART to mitigate such limitations. We treat sentences as basic units of matching instead of tokens, and use a sentence matching function to soft-match candidate and reference sentences. Our results show that system-level correlations of our proposed metric with a model-based matching function outperforms all competing metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-01T17:58:05Z)
• Impact of Pretraining Term Frequencies on Few-Shot Reasoning [51.990349528930125]
  We investigate how well pretrained language models reason with terms that are less frequent in the pretraining data. We measure the strength of this correlation for a number of GPT-based language models on various numerical deduction tasks. Although LMs exhibit strong performance at few-shot numerical reasoning tasks, our results raise the question of how much models actually generalize beyond pretraining data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-15T05:43:54Z)
• UDALM: Unsupervised Domain Adaptation through Language Modeling [79.73916345178415]
  We introduce UDALM, a fine-tuning procedure, using a mixed classification and Masked Language Model loss. Our experiments show that performance of models trained with the mixed loss scales with the amount of available target data can be effectively used as a stopping criterion. Our method is evaluated on twelve domain pairs of the Amazon Reviews Sentiment dataset, yielding $91.74%$ accuracy, which is an $1.11%$ absolute improvement over the state-of-versathe-art.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-14T19:05:01Z)
• Improving Dialog Evaluation with a Multi-reference Adversarial Dataset and Large Scale Pretraining [18.174086416883412]
  We introduce the DailyDialog++ dataset, consisting of (i) five relevant responses for each context and (ii) five adversarially crafted irrelevant responses for each context. We show that even in the presence of multiple correct references, n-gram based metrics and embedding based metrics do not perform well at separating relevant responses from even random negatives. We propose a new BERT-based evaluation metric called DEB, which is pretrained on 727M Reddit conversations and then finetuned on our dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-23T18:06:52Z)

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.