SelectLLM: Can LLMs Select Important Instructions to Annotate?
Authors:
Ritik Sachin Parkar,
Jaehyung Kim,
Jong Inn Park,
Dongyeop Kang
Abstract:
Instruction tuning benefits from large and diverse datasets, however creating such datasets involves a high cost of human labeling. While synthetic datasets generated by large language models (LLMs) have partly solved this issue, they often contain low-quality data. One effective solution is selectively annotating unlabelled instructions, especially given the relative ease of acquiring unlabeled i…
▽ More
Instruction tuning benefits from large and diverse datasets, however creating such datasets involves a high cost of human labeling. While synthetic datasets generated by large language models (LLMs) have partly solved this issue, they often contain low-quality data. One effective solution is selectively annotating unlabelled instructions, especially given the relative ease of acquiring unlabeled instructions or texts from various sources. However, how to select unlabelled instructions is not well-explored, especially in the context of LLMs. Further, traditional data selection methods, relying on input embedding space density, tend to underestimate instruction sample complexity, whereas those based on model prediction uncertainty often struggle with synthetic label quality. Therefore, we introduce SelectLLM, an alternative framework that leverages the capabilities of LLMs to more effectively select unlabeled instructions. SelectLLM consists of two key steps: Coreset-based clustering of unlabelled instructions for diversity and then prompting a LLM to identify the most beneficial instructions within each cluster. Our experiments demonstrate that SelectLLM matches or outperforms other state-of-the-art methods in instruction tuning benchmarks. It exhibits remarkable consistency across human and synthetic datasets, along with better cross-dataset generalization, as evidenced by a 10% performance improvement on the Cleaned Alpaca test set when trained on Dolly data. All code and data are publicly available (https://github.com/minnesotanlp/select-llm).
△ Less
Submitted 17 April, 2024; v1 submitted 29 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
Benchmarking Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models as Evaluators
Authors:
Ryan Koo,
Minhwa Lee,
Vipul Raheja,
Jong Inn Park,
Zae Myung Kim,
Dongyeop Kang
Abstract:
Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently been shown to be effective as automatic evaluators with simple prompting and in-context learning. In this work, we assemble 15 LLMs of four different size ranges and evaluate their output responses by preference ranking from the other LLMs as evaluators, such as System Star is better than System Square. We then evaluate the quality of ranking outputs intr…
▽ More
Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently been shown to be effective as automatic evaluators with simple prompting and in-context learning. In this work, we assemble 15 LLMs of four different size ranges and evaluate their output responses by preference ranking from the other LLMs as evaluators, such as System Star is better than System Square. We then evaluate the quality of ranking outputs introducing the Cognitive Bias Benchmark for LLMs as Evaluators (CoBBLEr), a benchmark to measure six different cognitive biases in LLM evaluation outputs, such as the Egocentric bias where a model prefers to rank its own outputs highly in evaluation. We find that LLMs are biased text quality evaluators, exhibiting strong indications on our bias benchmark (average of 40% of comparisons across all models) within each of their evaluations that question their robustness as evaluators. Furthermore, we examine the correlation between human and machine preferences and calculate the average Rank-Biased Overlap (RBO) score to be 49.6%, indicating that machine preferences are misaligned with humans. According to our findings, LLMs may still be unable to be utilized for automatic annotation aligned with human preferences. Our project page is at: https://minnesotanlp.github.io/cobbler.
△ Less
Submitted 29 September, 2023;
originally announced September 2023.
