tinyBenchmarks: evaluating LLMs with fewer examples

The versatility of large language models (LLMs) led to the creation of diverse benchmarks that thoroughly test a variety of language models' abilities. These benchmarks consist of tens of thousands of examples making evaluation of LLMs very expensive. In this paper, we investigate strategies to reduce the number of evaluations needed to assess the performance of an LLM on several key benchmarks. For example, we show that to accurately estimate the performance of an LLM on MMLU, a popular multiple-choice QA benchmark consisting of 14K examples, it is sufficient to evaluate this LLM on 100 curated examples. We release evaluation tools and tiny versions of popular benchmarks: Open LLM Leaderboard, MMLU, HELM, and AlpacaEval 2.0. Our empirical analysis demonstrates that these tools and tiny benchmarks are sufficient to reliably and efficiently reproduce the original evaluation results.

The ICL Consistency Test

Just like the previous generation of task-tuned models, large language models (LLMs) that are adapted to tasks via prompt-based methods like in-context-learning (ICL) perform well in some setups but not in others. This lack of consistency in prompt-based learning hints at a lack of robust generalisation. We here introduce the ICL consistency test -- a contribution to the GenBench collaborative benchmark task (CBT) -- which evaluates how consistent a model makes predictions across many different setups while using the same data. The test is based on different established natural language inference tasks. We provide preprocessed data constituting 96 different 'setups' and a metric that estimates model consistency across these setups. The metric is provided on a fine-grained level to understand what properties of a setup render predictions unstable and on an aggregated level to compare overall model consistency. We conduct an empirical analysis of eight state-of-the-art models, and our consistency metric reveals how all tested LLMs lack robust generalisation.

Mind the instructions: a holistic evaluation of consistency and interactions in prompt-based learning

Finding the best way of adapting pre-trained language models to a task is a big challenge in current NLP. Just like the previous generation of task-tuned models (TT), models that are adapted to tasks via in-context-learning (ICL) are robust in some setups but not in others. Here, we present a detailed analysis of which design choices cause instabilities and inconsistencies in LLM predictions. First, we show how spurious correlations between input distributions and labels -- a known issue in TT models -- form only a minor problem for prompted models. Then, we engage in a systematic, holistic evaluation of different factors that have been found to influence predictions in a prompting setup. We test all possible combinations of a range of factors on both vanilla and instruction-tuned (IT) LLMs of different scale and statistically analyse the results to show which factors are the most influential, interactive or stable. Our results show which factors can be used without precautions and which should be avoided or handled with care in most settings.

Curriculum Learning with Adam: The Devil Is in the Wrong Details

Curriculum learning (CL) posits that machine learning models -- similar to humans -- may learn more efficiently from data that match their current learning progress. However, CL methods are still poorly understood and, in particular for natural language processing (NLP), have achieved only limited success. In this paper, we explore why. Starting from an attempt to replicate and extend a number of recent curriculum methods, we find that their results are surprisingly brittle when applied to NLP. A deep dive into the (in)effectiveness of the curricula in some scenarios shows us why: when curricula are employed in combination with the popular Adam optimisation algorithm, they oftentimes learn to adapt to suboptimally chosen optimisation parameters for this algorithm. We present a number of different case studies with different common hand-crafted and automated CL approaches to illustrate this phenomenon, and we find that none of them outperforms optimisation with only Adam with well-chosen hyperparameters. As such, our results contribute to understanding why CL methods work, but at the same time urge caution when claiming positive results.

Language Modelling as a Multi-Task Problem

In this paper, we propose to study language modelling as a multi-task problem, bringing together three strands of research: multi-task learning, linguistics, and interpretability. Based on hypotheses derived from linguistic theory, we investigate whether language models adhere to learning principles of multi-task learning during training. To showcase the idea, we analyse the generalisation behaviour of language models as they learn the linguistic concept of Negative Polarity Items (NPIs). Our experiments demonstrate that a multi-task setting naturally emerges within the objective of the more general task of language modelling.We argue that this insight is valuable for multi-task learning, linguistics and interpretability research and can lead to exciting new findings in all three domains.