Quality Matters: Evaluating Synthetic Data for Tool-Using LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.16341v2
• Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 07:54:10 GMT
• Title: Quality Matters: Evaluating Synthetic Data for Tool-Using LLMs
• Authors: Shadi Iskander, Nachshon Cohen, Zohar Karnin, Ori Shapira, Sofia Tolmach,
• Abstract summary: Training large language models (LLMs) for external tool usage is a rapidly expanding field. The absence of systematic data quality checks poses complications for properly training and testing models. We propose two approaches for assessing the reliability of data for training LLMs to use external tools.
• Score: 11.24476329991465
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Training large language models (LLMs) for external tool usage is a rapidly expanding field, with recent research focusing on generating synthetic data to address the shortage of available data. However, the absence of systematic data quality checks poses complications for properly training and testing models. To that end, we propose two approaches for assessing the reliability of data for training LLMs to use external tools. The first approach uses intuitive, human-defined correctness criteria. The second approach uses a model-driven assessment with in-context evaluation. We conduct a thorough evaluation of data quality on two popular benchmarks, followed by an extrinsic evaluation that showcases the impact of data quality on model performance. Our results demonstrate that models trained on high-quality data outperform those trained on unvalidated data, even when trained with a smaller quantity of data. These findings empirically support the significance of assessing and ensuring the reliability of training data for tool-using LLMs.

Related papers

• Star-Agents: Automatic Data Optimization with LLM Agents for Instruction Tuning [71.2981957820888]
  We propose a novel Star-Agents framework, which automates the enhancement of data quality across datasets. The framework initially generates diverse instruction data with multiple LLM agents through a bespoke sampling method. The generated data undergo a rigorous evaluation using a dual-model method that assesses both difficulty and quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-21T02:30:53Z)
• Unveiling the Flaws: Exploring Imperfections in Synthetic Data and Mitigation Strategies for Large Language Models [89.88010750772413]
  Synthetic data has been proposed as a solution to address the issue of high-quality data scarcity in the training of large language models (LLMs) Our work delves into these specific flaws associated with question-answer (Q-A) pairs, a prevalent type of synthetic data, and presents a method based on unlearning techniques to mitigate these flaws. Our work has yielded key insights into the effective use of synthetic data, aiming to promote more robust and efficient LLM training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T08:38:59Z)
• How to Train Data-Efficient LLMs [56.41105687693619]
  We study data-efficient approaches for pre-training language models (LLMs) We find that Ask-LLM and Density sampling are the best methods in their respective categories. In our comparison of 19 samplers, involving hundreds of evaluation tasks and pre-training runs, we find that Ask-LLM and Density are the best methods in their respective categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T02:27:57Z)
• A Novel Metric for Measuring Data Quality in Classification Applications (extended version) [0.0]
  We introduce and explain a novel metric to measure data quality. This metric is based on the correlated evolution between the classification performance and the deterioration of data. We provide an interpretation of each criterion and examples of assessment levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-13T11:20:09Z)
• QualEval: Qualitative Evaluation for Model Improvement [82.73561470966658]
  We propose QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights. We demonstrate that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T00:21:44Z)
• RLBoost: Boosting Supervised Models using Deep Reinforcement Learning [0.0]
  We present RLBoost, an algorithm that uses deep reinforcement learning strategies to evaluate a particular dataset and obtain a model capable of estimating the quality of any new data. The results of the article show that this model obtains better and more stable results than other state-of-the-art algorithms such as LOO, DataShapley or DVRL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T14:38:33Z)
• Fairness-Aware Data Valuation for Supervised Learning [4.874780144224057]
  We propose Fairness-Aware Data vauatiOn (FADO) to incorporate fairness concerns into a series of ML-related tasks. We show how FADO can be applied as the basis for unfairness mitigation pre-processing techniques. Our methods achieve promising results -- up to a 40 p.p. improvement in fairness at a less than 1 p.p. loss in performance compared to a baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-29T18:51:13Z)
• Striving for data-model efficiency: Identifying data externalities on group performance [75.17591306911015]
  Building trustworthy, effective, and responsible machine learning systems hinges on understanding how differences in training data and modeling decisions interact to impact predictive performance. We focus on a particular type of data-model inefficiency, in which adding training data from some sources can actually lower performance evaluated on key sub-groups of the population. Our results indicate that data-efficiency is a key component of both accurate and trustworthy machine learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-11T16:48:27Z)
• Fix your Models by Fixing your Datasets [0.6058427379240697]
  Current machine learning tools lack streamlined processes for improving the data quality. We introduce a systematic framework for finding noisy or mislabelled samples in the dataset. We demonstrate the efficacy of our framework on public as well as private enterprise datasets of two Fortune 500 companies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-15T02:41:50Z)
• Exploring the Efficacy of Automatically Generated Counterfactuals for Sentiment Analysis [17.811597734603144]
  We propose an approach to automatically generating counterfactual data for data augmentation and explanation. A comprehensive evaluation on several different datasets and using a variety of state-of-the-art benchmarks demonstrate how our approach can achieve significant improvements in model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-29T10:27:01Z)
• How Training Data Impacts Performance in Learning-based Control [67.7875109298865]
  This paper derives an analytical relationship between the density of the training data and the control performance. We formulate a quality measure for the data set, which we refer to as $rho$-gap. We show how the $rho$-gap can be applied to a feedback linearizing control law.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-25T12:13:49Z)

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.