Rule-based Data Selection for Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.04715v1
• Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 03:13:06 GMT
• Title: Rule-based Data Selection for Large Language Models
• Authors: Xiaomin Li, Mingye Gao, Zhiwei Zhang, Chang Yue, Hong Hu,
• Abstract summary: The quality of training data significantly impacts the performance of large language models (LLMs) There are increasing studies using LLMs to rate and select data based on several human-crafted metrics (rules) These conventional rule-based approaches often depend too heavily on human vectorss, lack effective metrics for assessing rules, and exhibit limited adaptability to new tasks.
• Score: 9.886837013587124
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The quality of training data significantly impacts the performance of large language models (LLMs). There are increasing studies using LLMs to rate and select data based on several human-crafted metrics (rules). However, these conventional rule-based approaches often depend too heavily on human heuristics, lack effective metrics for assessing rules, and exhibit limited adaptability to new tasks. In our study, we introduce an innovative rule-based framework that utilizes the orthogonality of score vectors associated with rules as a novel metric for rule evaluations. Our approach includes an automated pipeline that first uses LLMs to generate a diverse set of rules, encompassing various rating dimensions to evaluate data quality. Then it rates a batch of data based on these rules and uses the determinantal point process (DPP) from random matrix theory to select the most orthogonal score vectors, thereby identifying a set of independent rules. These rules are subsequently used to evaluate all data, selecting samples with the highest average scores for downstream tasks such as LLM training. We verify the effectiveness of our method through two experimental setups: 1) comparisons with ground truth ratings and 2) benchmarking LLMs trained with the chosen data. Our comprehensive experiments cover a range of scenarios, including general pre-training and domain-specific fine-tuning in areas such as IMDB, Medical, Math, and Code. The outcomes demonstrate that our DPP-based rule rating method consistently outperforms other approaches, including rule-free rating, uniform sampling, importance resampling, and QuRating, in terms of both rating precision and model performance.

Related papers

• Active Evaluation Acquisition for Efficient LLM Benchmarking [18.85604491151409]
  We investigate strategies to improve evaluation efficiency by selecting a subset of examples from each benchmark using a learned policy. Our approach models the dependencies across test examples, allowing accurate prediction of the evaluation outcomes for the remaining examples. Empirical results demonstrate that our approach significantly reduces the number of evaluation prompts required.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T12:08:46Z)
• Training on the Benchmark Is Not All You Need [52.01920740114261]
  We propose a simple and effective data leakage detection method based on the contents of multiple-choice options. Our method is able to work under black-box conditions without access to model training data or weights. We evaluate the degree of data leakage of 31 mainstream open-source LLMs on four benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-03T11:09:44Z)
• Contrastive Policy Gradient: Aligning LLMs on sequence-level scores in a supervised-friendly fashion [44.95386817008473]
  We introduce Contrastive Policy Gradient, or CoPG, a simple and mathematically principled new RL algorithm that can estimate the optimal policy even from off-policy data. We show this approach to generalize the direct alignment method IPO (identity preference optimization) and classic policy gradient. We experiment with the proposed CoPG on a toy bandit problem to illustrate its properties, as well as for finetuning LLMs on a summarization task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-27T14:03:49Z)
• Preference Learning Algorithms Do Not Learn Preference Rankings [62.335733662381884]
  We study the conventional wisdom that preference learning trains models to assign higher likelihoods to more preferred outputs than less preferred outputs. We find that most state-of-the-art preference-tuned models achieve a ranking accuracy of less than 60% on common preference datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T21:29:44Z)
• CALRec: Contrastive Alignment of Generative LLMs for Sequential Recommendation [18.986613405565514]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are pretrained on vast corpora of text for sequential recommendation. We propose a two-stage LLM finetuning framework that finetunes a pretrained LLM in a two-tower fashion using a mixture of two contrastive losses and a language modeling loss. Our model significantly outperforms many state-of-the-art baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-03T18:51:19Z)
• Preference Fine-Tuning of LLMs Should Leverage Suboptimal, On-Policy Data [102.16105233826917]
  Learning from preference labels plays a crucial role in fine-tuning large language models. There are several distinct approaches for preference fine-tuning, including supervised learning, on-policy reinforcement learning (RL), and contrastive learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-22T17:20:18Z)
• DsDm: Model-Aware Dataset Selection with Datamodels [81.01744199870043]
  Standard practice is to filter for examples that match human notions of data quality. We find that selecting according to similarity with "high quality" data sources may not increase (and can even hurt) performance compared to randomly selecting data. Our framework avoids handpicked notions of data quality, and instead models explicitly how the learning process uses train datapoints to predict on the target tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-23T17:22:00Z)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)
• Filter Methods for Feature Selection in Supervised Machine Learning Applications -- Review and Benchmark [0.0]
  This review synthesizes the literature on feature selection benchmarking and evaluates the performance of 58 methods in the widely used R environment. We consider four typical dataset scenarios that are challenging for ML models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-23T20:20:24Z)
• Multiple-criteria Based Active Learning with Fixed-size Determinantal Point Processes [43.71112693633952]
  We introduce a multiple-criteria based active learning algorithm, which incorporates three complementary criteria, i.e., informativeness, representativeness and diversity. We show that our method performs significantly better and is more stable than other multiple-criteria based AL algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-04T13:22:54Z)
• Towards Model-Agnostic Post-Hoc Adjustment for Balancing Ranking Fairness and Algorithm Utility [54.179859639868646]
  Bipartite ranking aims to learn a scoring function that ranks positive individuals higher than negative ones from labeled data. There have been rising concerns on whether the learned scoring function can cause systematic disparity across different protected groups. We propose a model post-processing framework for balancing them in the bipartite ranking scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-15T10:08:39Z)

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.