A Comparison of LLM Finetuning Methods & Evaluation Metrics with Travel Chatbot Use Case

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.03562v1
• Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 05:52:00 GMT
• Title: A Comparison of LLM Finetuning Methods & Evaluation Metrics with Travel Chatbot Use Case
• Authors: Sonia Meyer, Shreya Singh, Bertha Tam, Christopher Ton, Angel Ren,
• Abstract summary: This research compares large language model (LLM) fine-tuning methods, including Quantized Low Rank Adapter (QLoRA), Retrieval Augmented fine-tuning (RAFT), and Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) The travel dataset was sourced from the the Reddit API by requesting posts from travel-related subreddits to get travel-related conversation prompts and personalized travel experiences. The best model according to human evaluation and some GPT-4 metrics was Mistral RAFT, so this underwent a Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) training pipeline, and ultimately was evaluated as the best
• Score: 0.3495246564946556
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This research compares large language model (LLM) fine-tuning methods, including Quantized Low Rank Adapter (QLoRA), Retrieval Augmented fine-tuning (RAFT), and Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), and additionally compared LLM evaluation methods including End to End (E2E) benchmark method of "Golden Answers", traditional natural language processing (NLP) metrics, RAG Assessment (Ragas), OpenAI GPT-4 evaluation metrics, and human evaluation, using the travel chatbot use case. The travel dataset was sourced from the the Reddit API by requesting posts from travel-related subreddits to get travel-related conversation prompts and personalized travel experiences, and augmented for each fine-tuning method. We used two pretrained LLMs utilized for fine-tuning research: LLaMa 2 7B, and Mistral 7B. QLoRA and RAFT are applied to the two pretrained models. The inferences from these models are extensively evaluated against the aforementioned metrics. The best model according to human evaluation and some GPT-4 metrics was Mistral RAFT, so this underwent a Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) training pipeline, and ultimately was evaluated as the best model. Our main findings are that: 1) quantitative and Ragas metrics do not align with human evaluation, 2) Open AI GPT-4 evaluation most aligns with human evaluation, 3) it is essential to keep humans in the loop for evaluation because, 4) traditional NLP metrics insufficient, 5) Mistral generally outperformed LLaMa, 6) RAFT outperforms QLoRA, but still needs postprocessing, 7) RLHF improves model performance significantly. Next steps include improving data quality, increasing data quantity, exploring RAG methods, and focusing data collection on a specific city, which would improve data quality by narrowing the focus, while creating a useful product.

Related papers

• Foundational Automatic Evaluators: Scaling Multi-Task Generative Evaluator Training for Reasoning-Centric Domains [97.5573252172065]
  We train a family of Automatic Reasoning Evaluators (FARE) with a simple iterative rejection-sampling supervised finetuning approach.<n>FARE-8B challenges larger specialized RL-trained evaluators and FARE-20B sets the new standard for open-source evaluators.<n>As inference-time rerankers, FARE-20B achieves near-oracle performance on MATH.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-20T17:52:06Z)
• Off-Policy Corrected Reward Modeling for Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback [52.1410307583181]
  We useReinforcement Learning from Human Feedback to train language models (LMs) to follow complex human preferences.<n>As training progresses, the responses generated by the LM no longer resemble the responses seen by the reward model (RM)<n>We propose Off-Policy Corrected Reward Modeling to correct the RM using importance weighting, without requiring new labels or samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-21T11:19:04Z)
• Grounding Synthetic Data Evaluations of Language Models in Unsupervised Document Corpora [9.871701356351542]
  Language Models (LMs) continue to advance, improving response quality and coherence.<n>A plethora of evaluation benchmarks have been constructed to assess model quality, response appropriateness, and reasoning capabilities.<n>We propose a methodology for automating the construction of fact-based synthetic data model evaluations grounded in document populations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-13T18:50:03Z)
• How to Evaluate Reward Models for RLHF [51.31240621943791]
  We introduce a new benchmark for reward models that quantifies their ability to produce strong language models through RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback) We build a predictive model of downstream LLM performance by evaluating the reward model on proxy tasks. We launch an end-to-end RLHF experiment on a large-scale crowdsourced human preference platform to view real reward model downstream performance as ground truth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T21:38:21Z)
• Post-hoc Reward Calibration: A Case Study on Length Bias [28.266675778940133]
  Reward models (RMs) can develop biases by exploiting spurious correlations in their training data. These biases can lead to incorrect output rankings, sub-optimal model evaluations, and the amplification of undesirable behaviours. This paper addresses the challenge of correcting such biases without additional data and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-25T22:30:42Z)
• Self-Taught Evaluators [77.92610887220594]
  We present an approach that aims to im-proves without human annotations, using synthetic training data only. Our Self-Taught Evaluator can improve a strong LLM from 75.4 to 88.3 on RewardBench.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-05T17:57:02Z)
• ARES: Alternating Reinforcement Learning and Supervised Fine-Tuning for Enhanced Multi-Modal Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Through Diverse AI Feedback [13.154512864498912]
  We propose a two-stage algorithm ARES that Alternates REinforcement Learning (RL) and Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) First, we request the Teacher to score how much each sentence contributes to solving the problem in a Chain-of-Thought (CoT) Second, we ask the Teacher to correct the wrong reasoning after the RL stage. With the correction feedback, we stabilize the RL fine-tuned model through SFT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T07:20:11Z)
• Monte Carlo Tree Search Boosts Reasoning via Iterative Preference Learning [55.96599486604344]
  We introduce an approach aimed at enhancing the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) through an iterative preference learning process. We use Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) to iteratively collect preference data, utilizing its look-ahead ability to break down instance-level rewards into more granular step-level signals. The proposed algorithm employs Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to update the LLM policy using this newly generated step-level preference data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-01T11:10:24Z)
• A Critical Evaluation of AI Feedback for Aligning Large Language Models [60.42291111149438]
  We show that simple supervised fine-tuning with GPT-4 as the teacher outperforms existing RLAIF pipelines. More generally, we find that the gains from RLAIF vary substantially across base model families, test-time evaluation protocols, and critic models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T18:53:54Z)
• Efficient Finetuning Large Language Models For Vietnamese Chatbot [1.2075778142867704]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to achieve remarkable performance across a variety of natural language tasks. We leverage large-scale instruction-following datasets from open-source projects, namely Alpaca, GPT4All, and Chat-Doctor. We utilize parameter-efficient tuning through Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) on two open LLMs, resulting four models: Bloomz-Chat, Bloomz-Doctor, GPTJ-Chat, GPTJ-Doctor.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-09T00:11:53Z)
• Is ChatGPT Good at Search? Investigating Large Language Models as Re-Ranking Agents [56.104476412839944]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable zero-shot generalization across various language-related tasks. This paper investigates generative LLMs for relevance ranking in Information Retrieval (IR) To address concerns about data contamination of LLMs, we collect a new test set called NovelEval. To improve efficiency in real-world applications, we delve into the potential for distilling the ranking capabilities of ChatGPT into small specialized models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T10:16:03Z)
• G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment [64.01972723692587]
  We present G-Eval, a framework of using large language models with chain-of-thoughts (CoT) and a form-filling paradigm to assess the quality of NLG outputs. We show that G-Eval with GPT-4 as the backbone model achieves a Spearman correlation of 0.514 with human on summarization task, outperforming all previous methods by a large margin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-29T12:46:54Z)

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.