Datasets:
Translation-EnKo
/
arxiv-translation

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
2
text
stringlengths
4
4.47k
**Metrics**: In order to objectively evaluate the effectiveness of the agents, designing proper metrics is significant, which may influence the evaluation accuracy and comprehensiveness. Ideal evaluation metrics should precisely reflect the quality of the agents, and align with the human feelings when using them in real-world scenarios. In existing work, we can conclude the following representative evaluation metrics. (1) _Task success metrics:_ These metrics measure how well an agent can complete tasks and achieve goals. Common metrics include success rate [12, 57, 59, 22], reward/score [22, 59, 138], coverage [16], and accuracy [18, 40, 102]. Higher values indicate greater task completion ability. (2) _Human similarity metrics:_ These metrics quantify the degree to which the agent behaviors closely resembles that of humans. Typical examples include trajectory/location accuracy [164, 38], dialogue similarities [79, 102], and mimicry of human responses [29, 102]. Higher similarity suggests better human simulation performance. (3) _Efficiency metrics:_ In contrast to the aforementioned metrics used to evaluate the agent effectiveness, these metrics aim to assess the efficiency of agent. Commonly considered metrics encompass the length of planning [57], the cost associated with development [18], the speed of inference [16, 38], and number of clarification dialogues [138].
al [30] build medical LLMs through continual pre-training LLaMA [27] on medical papers. However, they do not evaluate the model's quantitative performance in a non-fine tuning setting. In this work, we measure the model's performance in an in-context learning setting, showing the clear benefits of continual pre-training.
The results in Section 4.1 indicate that, given a fixed amount of compute for training, selecting data from larger and larger source datasets is a promising method to improve language model performance.
Return a JSON formatted string with one key, called 'paraphrases', and a list of paraphrases.
FIRST provide a one-sentence comparison of the two responses and explain \ which you feel is more helpful. SECOND, on a new line, state only "A" or "B" to indicate which response is more helpful.
M: Now if you increase the 16, now you have that you would need to determine 16 minus 3 minus 4 and that adds up to the remainder, which is 9. Then subtract 1 and but you have 5. The next answer then, which you do is now 5 times 2, which is 10. M: Which is $10, and then 14, which is is the remainder M: Is $6 and $8 and that is a total of $14, and now that you subtract 2, and that means that you now have 16 minus 5, which is 11. M: The next thing is to the yield for the second situation you have got 16 minus 3 plus 4 and that comes to 9. This is very easy to do instantaneously even the first part, 16, 3, 4 and 9, and you happen to know what lives, and you just count and you have five and five then go ahead. 5 times 2 comes to 10, so $16 then so actually you have just added 4.5, now your total is 16 plus $2. But now to this is $10 plus $2 is $12, so how much you sell from 16 and then minus 12 comes to 4. M: So what is the remainder of 16 minus 3 plus 4 minus 5? Matters you see three is missing. Four you have. Five eggs. So 5 times 2, so $10 remains at $10, so reduce, so what happens now to what happened was added with subtracted the next the question is 16 minuses 3 plus 4, and presumably you've done this before, if not then you add up 16 minus 3 plus 4 gives us 9 and what is the remainder after 5? So what is 5 times 2? So 10. 2, 3, plus 2 = 5, and so your answer so far is 16 minus 3 plus 4, and give us the basket minus 2 remains 9 and now you have to determine now what is the total for the second part?
Figure 5: Relative frequency of the four outcomes of RQ1 and RQ2 in LLaMA-2 models, with entity substitution (top row) and relation substitution (bottom row) for RQ1. Let the increase of the entity recall with the input substitution for the first hop reasoning be the _success_ case of RQ1, and the increase of the consistency score with the increased entity recall for the second hop reasoning be the _success_ case of RQ2. The green, blue, yellow, and red bars show the cases of SS (success-success), FS, SF, and FF for RQ1 and RQ2, respectively. We manually set the value of the last layer as 0.5 multiplied by the relative frequency for RQ1 because the intervention does not affect the consistency at that layer.
In particular, they report a confidence intervals of 0.454 to 0.455 and 0.542 to 0.543 for \(a\) and \(b\) respectively. These are very tight given that they likely had on the order of 400 observations with which to estimate \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\).
Derivation. Based on Property 2, We propose stepwise sampling-and-voting can further enhance the performance.
**Crowd prediction.** On any given question, as individual forecasts are submitted, forecasting platforms continuously aggregate them into a crowd prediction; see Section A.3 for details about the aggregation
Using Efficient DACP methods, we select 10% subset of the financial corpus for each method. We also create another version of ETS-DACP called **ETS-DACP-com** by using the other two measures with similarity by averaging all three measures for ranking/weighting. To mitigate overfitting, both the TACP and Efficient DACP methods run for a single epoch, employing the same pre-training configuration as DACP to ensure a fair comparison. We run these experiments with Pythia-1B due to the compute budget. We perform the evaluation ten times using different random seeds and report the mean performance for each of our four financial tasks.
Question: What do you think of velvet? Answer: Whether you like your velvet crushed, vibrant or head-to-toe, there's really no denying the sheer luxe and elegance of this timeless textile. Question: Is velvet super stylish? Answer: Yes, really! This year it's all about embracing fun gem-toned velvety pieces. Question: Was velvet solely associated with dark moody shades of navy and black? Answer: Long gone are the days when velvet was solely associated with dark moody shades of navy and black. Question: Do you have any covetable velvet pieces on the high street right now? Answer: Below we've rounded up the most covetable velvet pieces on the high street right now. Question: Are you completely obsessed or beyond bored of it? Answer: We're already coming up with outfit ideas!
**Evaluation Models.** To conduct the evaluation, we consider representative LLMs from open-source models to closed-source API-accessing models as follows:
_MetaMath Approach._ The synthetic methods proposed in MetaMath, including answer augmentation, rephrasing question, self-verification question and FOBAR question. In experiments, we follow the implementation of MetaMath but use GPT-4 Turbo instead of GPT-3.5 Turbo to generate response data using their released questions.
Footnote 28: This is akin to adding a domain name like wikipedia.org at the beginning of the data; the model lacks prior knowledge that these special token data signify high-quality, useful data. It’s up to the model and the training process to _autonomously_ discover this.
9. Iris Winnow uses a magical turseytter to send letters to Roman Kitt.
In order to make a specialist or domain-specific LLM, they need to be trained on domain data. Approaches for building domain-specific LLMs can be categorized into two categories: training domain-specific LLMs from scratch or using continual pre-training existing LLMs with domain data. Most researchers have taken the first approach of building domain-specific LLMs from scratch. Prominent examples are the Med-PaLM family [23; 24] for the medical domain, Galactica for scientific papers [26], and BloombergGPT [31] for finance. Little attention has been paid to building domain-specific LLMs using domain-adaptive continual pre-training, despite being a much cheaper alternative. Notably, PMC-LLaMA [30], a medical LLM was trained through continual pre-training of LLaMA [27] on medical papers. Continual pre-training can also be used for updating a LLM with the latest knowledge in an evolving environment.
of the language identification experiment. We observe that when using English prompts, nearly every model tends to generate output in English. When provided with a Chinese prompt, we observed that Llama-2-7b tends to output in Chinese, whereas Llama-2-7b-chat tends to output in English. Furthermore, with Chinese prompts, the Freeze First 10 Layers model tends to yield a higher proportion of Chinese text output than the Freeze Last 10 Layers model. Models with frozen modules show relatively similar results, with approximately \(60\%\) of their output being in Chinese. In the case of adapters, increasing the learning rate can lead the Lora model to produce more Chinese output, while the (Ia)\({}^{3}\) model tends to favor English output.
Above, 1 uses monotonicity of the log function and 2 uses convexity of the log function. Using simple Chernoff bound, one can see that as long a \(N\((1-o(1))\frac{N}{D}\) for all \(w\in D\).
\begin{table} \begin{tabular}{l l l l|l l} \(S\) & \(T_{total}\) & \(T_{selected}\) & Epochs & Non-Web Snapshot PPL & Instruction + Answers PPL \\ \hline Random & 40B & 40B & \(1\) & \(16.27\pm 0.012\) & \(14.19\pm 0.003\) \\ & 40B & 20B & \(2\) & \(16.39\pm 0.011\) (+\(0.12\)) & \(14.37\pm 0.015\) (+\(0.18\)) \\ \hline D4 & 40B & 20B & 2 & \(\mathbf{16.10\pm 0.024}\) (-\(0.17\)) & \(\mathbf{13.85\pm 0.016}\) (\(-0.34\)) \\ \end{tabular} \end{table} Table 1: For fixed data selection method and source dataset size, we compare the effects of choosing new tokens or repeating token. All models are 1.3B OPT models trained on 40B tokens. \(T_{selected}\) denotes the number of tokens selected from the source dataset. The top row denotes baseline training. Mean and standard error across 3 seeds are shown.
In this section we start with a review of early pre-trained neural language models as they are the base of LLMs, and then focus our discussion on three families of LLMs: GPT, LlaMA, and PaLM. Table I provides an overview of some of these models and their characteristics.
Top headlines are pulled from the Associated Press RSS feed for dates ranging from 03/15/24 to 03/25/24. From an initial corpus of 1486 news articles, we use GPT-4 to generate one question per article, instructing it to produce questions for which there is a clear numerical answer. We perform another GPT-4 quality control step and result in 249 unique question-answer pairs.
**Output** [[Retriev=Yes] <p>Reference [1]<p>I [IsRel] =Relevant] Sergei Vladimirovich Bodrov (born June 28, 1948) is a Russian film director, screenwriter, and producer.[[IsNew] =Fully Supported[[Retriev=Continue]He was born in Moscow, Russia.[[Retriev=Continue]He is the president of the Russian Guild of Film Producers.[IsNew] =5]
For a given condition, patient vignettes were constructed using the following process. First, we retrieved 60 passages (20 each) on the range of demographics, symptoms, and management plans associated with the condition from using an internet search engine. To ensure these passages were relevant to the given condition, we used the general-purpose LLM, PaLM-2 [10], to filter these retrieved passages, removing any passages deemed unrelated to the given condition. We then prompted AMIE to generate plausible patient vignettes aligned with the demographics, symptoms, and management plans retrieved from the filtered passages, by providing a one-shot exemplar to enforce a particular vignette format.
\begin{table} \begin{tabular}{l} \hline \hline **Input** Tell me a bio about G. Venugopa.
**RecAdam**(Chen et al., 2020) We use the same hyperparameter setting for the optimizer as in Chen et al. (2020): we set the coefficient of the quadratic penalty \(\gamma\) to 5,000, and select the best \(t_{0}\) and \(k\) in 100, 250, 500, 1,000 and 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1 respectively for the annealing coefficient \(\lambda(t)\).
**Instructation:** A mechanic charges different rates to repair the tires of trucks and cars. For each truck tire that is repaired, the mechanic will charge $60 and for each car tire that is repaired, the mechanic will charge $40. On Thursday, the mechanic repairs 6 truck tires and 4 car tires. On Friday, the mechanic repairs 12 car tires and doesn't repair any truck tires. How much more revenue did the mechanic earn on the day with higher revenue?
Figure 3: **Models trained on \(\blacktriangled\) RefinedWeb alone outperform models trained on curated corpora.** Zero-shot performance averaged on our core-agg (left) and ext-agg (right) task aggregates (see Section 4.1 for details, and Figure 1 for results on main-agg). Existing open models fail to match the performance of the original GPT-3 series (left); however, models trained on RefinedWeb significantly outperform models trained on \(\blacktriangled\) The Pile: including our direct comparison model (right), ruling out our pretraining setup as the main source of increased performance. In fact, our RefinedWeb models even match the performance of the \(\blacksquare\) GPT-3 models.
GPT-4-1106-Preview and GPT-3.5-Turbo-1106, the two models we use in our system, were released in November, 2023. We find no evidence that the post-training phase leaks further information after their knowledge cut-offs (April, 2023 and January, 2021). As a test, we manually query the model on 20 major events in June, 2023-September, 20233, such as "Who won the 2023 Turkish presidential election?". For all 20 questions, both models either claim no knowledge or simply hallucinate.
The first example (about _Board hearing_) is a simple information seeking problem, and both ChatQA-70B and GPT-4 answer correctly. In the second example (about _Arya_), the model needs to find implicit information (highlighted in blue) for giving the answer.
Examples of exact matches found by exact substring deduplication can be seen in Table 17.
Pierre Colombo\({}^{1,2,}\) Telmo Pessoa Pires\({}^{1,}\) Malik Boudiaf\({}^{1,}\)1
The dataset used in this experiment contains information about celebrity parents. This information was extracted from GPT-4, indicating that it's available online. Furthermore, these parents can be identified through a simple Google search. Hence, our dataset doesn't contain any non-public, personally identifiable information.
**Performance.** CT-LLM after SFT and DPO is named as CT-LLM-SFT-DPO. The performance of CT-LLM-SFT-DPO on general benchmarks e.g. MMLU, COPA is posted at Table 2.
In this paper, a piece of knowledge is a tuple of three strings: (name, attribute, value) \(=(n,a,v)\). For instance, \(n=\) "Anya", \(a=\) "birthday", \(v=\) "Oct 2, 1996".
_Remark 9.2_.: It is typically observed in practice that MoE models underperform compared to dense models with the same number of total parameters. We demonstrate that this degradation does not come from the model's knowledge storage capability.
To calculate the difference between the revenue from repairing truck tires and car tires on Thursday and Friday, we need to subtract the revenue from repairing car tires on Thursday and Friday from the total revenue from repairing truck tires and car tires on Thursday and Friday. Therefore, the difference between the revenue from repairing truck tires and car tires on Thursday and Friday was $900 - $640 = $260.
**Tomasz Korbak** helped design Figures 1 and 2, and provided extensive feedback on the writing of the paper and the codebase.
With this white paper, we introduce v0.5 of the **AI Safety Benchmark**. The benchmark is designed to assess the safety risks of AI systems that use chat-tuned Language Models (LMs).5 We focus on LMs as a tractable starting point because they have been extensively researched and are widely deployed in production, and several LM benchmarks already exist (e.g., HELM [19] and BIG-bench [20]). In the future, we will benchmark the safety risks of models for other modalities (such as image-to-text models, text-to-image models, and speech-to-speech models [21, 22]), and expand to LMs in languages other than English.
Our Infini-Transformer enables an unbounded context window with a bounded memory footprint.
2. Pyramid workout: Starting with a 30-second sprint, increase the duration by 10 seconds each round, up to one minute, then work back down to 30 seconds.
Neural Scaling Laws for Language ModelsNeural scaling laws relate the optimal number of model parameters and amount of training data for a fixed amount of compute. Hoffmann et al. (2022) presented the Chinchilla scaling laws for language models demonstrating that there was a linear relationship between the size of the model and the amount of training data needed. Their findings indicated that prior models such as Gopher (Rae et al., 2021) are severely undertrained. Recently, models such as Llama (Touvron et al., 2023) are trained with much more data. These scaling laws were drawn for the paradigm of single-epoch training. Recently, Muennighoff et al. (2023) showed that the marginal utility of repeated data rapidly diminishes when training for more than 4 epochs, and formulated scaling laws under repeated data. Concurrently, Xue et al. (2023) showed that repeating even small fractions of the pre-training data can lead to overfitting and reduce model performance.
PersonU starts the conversation and only asks questions. Most of PersonU's questionsare follow-up or continuations of previous questions.
In this paper, we introduce COIG-**CQIA** (**Chinese** Open Instruction Generalist - **Q**uality **I**s **A**ll You Need), a high-quality Chineseinstruction tuning dataset, which is designed to provide the Chinese NLP community with high-quality and human interaction-aligned instruction fine-tuning data. Inspired by the work of LIMA Zhou et al. (2023), COIG-CQIA focuses on curating a dataset from Chinese internet sources, comprising Q&A sessions and articles. These sources undergo thorough cleaning, restructuring, and manual review to ensure high quality, diversity, and relevance. Furthermore, we conduct analytical experiments to assess the effects of data quality, provenance, and mixing ratio.
Assuming a true distribution as in Equation (1), consider training a model on a dataset of size \(T\) of AI data-generated data. The synthesized data amounts to a version of the true data distribution with the tail cut at some finite rank \(k\) or the tail narrowed to a smaller exponent. Our main findings are as follows.
In this section, we present results from our statistical and qualitative analysis of the 3,158 claim-level faithfulness annotations in Fables, which include both free-form comments and citation evidence to support or refute these claims.6 Broadly, we observe that Claude-3-Opus is the most faithful LLM summarizer, with 90% of its claims rated as faithful, followed by GPT-4 and GPT-4-Turbo at 78%, GPT-3.5-Turbo at 72%, and Mixtral at 70% (Table 2).
**Economic Management Domain** data is collected from MBA Wiki Encyclopedia, a website that encompasses Wikipedia-style structured knowledge, authored and revised by numerous contributors. We designed various prompt templates, combining entry names with random templates to construct instructions, such as "Please explain the following term in detail: Remittance Agent". Ultimately, the content of the entries is concatenated and constructed into responses in markdown format.
We demonstrate the outstanding multilingual ability of Nemotron-4 15B using four widely-studied benchmarks in previous works that cover a diverse range of high to low resource natural languages. For classification we use accuracy as the metric; for generative tasks, we use exact match; and for machine translation, we evaluate using the sacreBLEU (Post, 2018) implementation of BLEU(Papineni et al., 2002), using spm-floes-101 tokenization to obtain spBLEU scores.
We further extend the Yi model capability from three dimensions: context scaling, vision-language adaptation, and depth-upscaling. To achive 200K context length, we continue pretrain the model on about 5B length-upsampled data, similar to the concurrent work in Fu et al. [22]. To adapt the model to vision-language tasks, we integrate a vision encoder and develop a multi-stage training method, following and improving the practice of Liu et al. [47]. We also study the effectiveness of depth-upscaling [38], i.e., making the model deeper by continual pretraining, and confirming its effectiveness to further improve model performance.
**Remark**.: _It's worth noting that many common LLMs Tunstall et al. (2023) include an additional step of to align the model with human preference Rafailov et al. (2023); Munos et al. (2023); von Werra et al. (2020).
1. _Accuracy_: the stolen model \(\hat{f}\) should match the performance of the target model \(f\) on some particular data domain. For example, if the target is an image classifier, we might want the stolen model to match the target's overall accuracy on ImageNet. 2. _Fidelity_: the stolen model \(\hat{f}\) should be functionally equivalent to the target model \(f\) on all inputs. That is, for any valid input \(p\), we want \(\hat{f}(p)\approx f(p)\).
Previously Seen KnowledgeOne important distinction to make is between knowledge that the model has been exposed to before during pre-training as opposed to entirely new facts. Considering the size of modern LLM training sets, they cover a vast amount of information available through web-sourced text. As a result, even in niche domains, the goal of knowledge injection is not necessarily to teach the model entirely new facts but rather to "refresh" its memory by inducing a bias toward a particular domain.
\(C\) (Computational Budget): This reflects the total computational resources allocated for training the model. It encompasses not just the raw compute power but also includes considerations of training time and energy consumption. The computational budget is effectively a proxy for the total amount of compute effort expended in training the model.
Footnote 29: Importantly, \(P_{i}\) may depend on \(n_{1},\ldots,n_{i-1}\); however, since Lemma F.1 permits \(P_{i}\) to depend on \(Q_{1},\ldots,Q_{i-1}\), this is acceptable.
Figure A.15 **Prompt for the explanation generation given an dialogue and the human rating.** AMIE was prompted to summarize good and bad aspects of a particular dialogue and provide an explanation of the given human rating between 1 and 5.
In this part, we first formulate the general planning paradigm of LLMs for solving complex tasks, which is illustrated in Figure 16.
We observe, in Figure A17 that at small model scales, sentence transformer embedding spaces outperforms the OPT embedding space. Given these initial results, we took our most overall-all efficient embedding space at the 1.3b model scale ("all-mini-lm-v6") and ran a 6.7b training run with it. Surprisingly, we observed that at larger model scale, the OPT embedding space outperforms the "all-mini-LM-v6" embedding space. Given that the difference between "all-mini-LM-v6" and "all-mp-net-base-v2" is generally small (see Figure A17), we also expect the OPT embedding space to beat "all-mpnet-base-v2" at the 6.7b, although we were not able to complete this run due to compute restrictions. We see the same trend when we consider overall and naive efficiency of using D4 with different embedding spaces in Figure A18.
* Memorizable knowledge accuracy (# of people). We apply the model to the original training data, such as "Anya Briar Forger was born on" and check if it can correctly generate "October 2, 1996". For each person, we evaluate all five attributes and compute their average accuracy.23 We then _sum_ this accuracy up over all \(N\) people. (Ideally, a perfect model would have this "accuracy" equal to \(N\).) Footnote 23: We exclude the company city attribute because it can be uniquely determined by the employer name, thus providing no additional knowledge. * Extractable knowledge accuracy (# of people). Following the pretrain-finetune framework of [3], we fine-tune any given pretrained model on half of the individuals using LoRA [17] with question-answering texts like "What is the birthday of Anya Briar Forger? Answer: October 2, 1996." We then test its generation accuracy on the remaining half of the individuals. High accuracy indicates that the knowledge is not only memorized but can also be _flexibly_ extracted for downstream tasks. Again, for each person,we evaluate all five attributes and compute their average accuracy. We then _sum_ this across all \(N/2\) people and multiply by 2.
**Planning without Feedback**: In this method, the agents do not receive feedback that can influence its future behaviors after taking actions. In the following, we present several representative strategies.
We first evaluate the Brier score of our end-to-end system on the test set. Note that all hyperparameters were chosen based on the validation set and all test set questions appear temporally after the validation questions, mirroring the setting of a real-time forecasting competition. In addition to the Brier score, we also report accuracy to compare with past work (Zou et al., 2022; Yan et al., 2024).
Graduate Entrance Examinationis one of the most challenging examinations in China, exceeding college entrance exams in difficulty and requiring advanced knowledge application and depth. We have collected a variety of exam papers from recent years across disciplines including mathematics, computer science, chemistry, law, psychology, medicine, etc. Using Mathpix4 for image-to-text conversion, we extracted questions and answers and converted them into LaTeX format. We eliminate data without analysis and manually verified the accuracy of the questions and answers. We eliminate data without analysis and manually verified the accuracy of the questions and answers.
Generation TaskDeactivation methods: (i) randomly sampled neurons in the generating layers. (ii) randomly sampled neurons in all layers. (iv) language-specific neurons in the generating layers.
Recently, Large-scale language models (LLMs) have garnered significant attention and become the go-to approach for numerous natural language processing (NLP) tasks, including open domain conversation [1; 2; 3; 4], coding [5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13] and math [14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19]. A conspicuous example is ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI. This model uses extensive pre-training on large-scale internet data and further fine-tuning with specific instruction data and methods. As a result, it achieves state-of-the-art zero-shot performance on various benchmarks. Subsequently, Anthropic, Google, and Meta also launched their competitive products one after another. Notably, Meta's series of Llama [4; 20] models have sparked an open-source revolution and quickly narrowed the gap with those closed-source LLMs. This trend also gradually stimulates the releases of MPT4, Falcon [21], StarCoder [12], Alpaca [22], Vicuna [23], and WizardLM [24], etc. However, these open models still struggles with the scenarios which require complex multi-step quantitative reasoning, such as solving mathematical and science challenges [25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33; 34; 35].
- The strategic advantage of skipping the debate: Moderate. Trump has a history of unconventional campaign strategies, but skipping the first debate is a risky move.
\(D\) (Data Size): This is measured in terms of the number of tokens or data points available for training the model. A larger data size (\(D\)) provides the model with more examples to learn from, potentially improving its generalization capabilities and performance on unseen data.
**Milvus**[240] is an open-source vector database built to power embedding similarity search and AI applications. Milvus makes unstructured data search more accessible, and provides a consistent user experience regardless of the deployment environment.
Pre-instruction-tuning is not simply upweighting salient tokens from documentsWe include an ablation inspired by Hu et al. (2023) which upweights tokens when pre-training on documents to focus on salient information. We assign a weight of 1.0 to tokens in documents that are included in the answers (e.g., "Jennifer Lame" in the sentence "Editing was handled by Jennifer Lame"), and assign a lower weight of 0.5 to other tokens. As shown in Tab.
For the evaluation using the Japanese LM Evaluation Harness, we utilized Stability AI Japan's fork of lm-eval-harness3[13] and configured it according to their convention. This configuration is widely used and compatible with the results on their report4 and Rinna leaderboards5, thus allowing direct comparison of scores with a large number of Japanese LLMs.
Jurning maintains winning what further, Nash becomes natural when he initially discussed her concerns about his motion. When he was in the middle of a school, she was able to learn a more complex, and the story is not a good choice.
6. Output your answer: Given the balanced considerations and the unpredictable nature of Trump's campaign strategies, I would assign a probability that leans slightly towards participation due to the high benefits it offers, but not overwhelmingly so due to the potential strategic considerations against it.
In the end, we calculate the average accuracy score of unanswerable and answerable cases as the final metric. We consider this average accuracy as a reliable metric since it is in the same spirit of F1 metric which measures the harmonic mean of precision and recall scores.
Comparing the fitsWe again find that the estimated Chinchilla model fits the data poorly. Repeating the likelihood ratio test from Section 3.1 yields a t-statistic of \(5.4\times 10^{135}\). Examining the loss values, a Kolmolgorov-Smirnoff test enables us to reject the identity of these distributions (\(p=1.6\times 10^{-54}\)).
**Impact of Feedback and Human Oversight on Agent Systems.** When solving a complex problem, it is extremely unlikely that one provides a correct, robust solution on their first try. Instead, one might pose a potential solution before criticizing it and refining it. One could also consult with someone else and receive feedback from another perspective. The same idea of iterative feedback and refinement is essential for helping agents solve complex problems.
**Output**[**Retriee**]=Yes]<p>The Walking Dead (season 7)-The Walking Dead (season 7) The seventh season of "The Walking Dead", an American post-apocalypetric horror television series on AMC, premiered on October 23, 2016, and concluded on April 2, 2017, consisting of 16 episodes. Developed for television by Frank Darabout, the series is based on the eponymous series of comic books by Robert Kirkman, Tony Moore, and Charlie Adlard.
Recent progress in general-purpose large language models (LLMs) [9, 10, 11] has shown that artificial intelligence (AI) systems have capabilities to plan, reason, and incorporate relevant context to hold naturalistic conversations. This progress affords an opportunity to rethink the possibilities of AI in medicine towards the development of fully interactive conversational AI. Such medical AI systems would understand clinical language, intelligently acquire information under uncertainty, and engage in natural, diagnostically useful medical conversations with patients and those who care for them. The potential real-world utility of AI systems capable of clinical and diagnostic dialogue is broad, as the development of such capabilities might improve access to diagnostic and prognostic expertise, to improved quality, consistency, availability, and affordability of care, and to help realize better health outcomes (particularly for populations facing healthcare disparities).
tasks. However, when evaluated on Pile perplexity, we observe significant degradation in perplexity across many sub-domains in Figure 3. This is likely because synthetic data is very clean containing few special characters and being highly structured. In contrast several sub-domains of the Pile such as OWT, and Hackernews have such special tokens. On domains such as Philipapers and Gutenberg, we observe that dropping real C4 text from the pre-training data, and training on synthetic documents alone drops performance significantly (increase in perplexity). This is once again attributed to the fact that synthetic data does not contain certain 'tags' and'styles' that are prevalent in real data scrapes, and emphasized how **WRAP** is a better strategy than pre-training on synthetic data alone. In terms of performance on zero-shot tasks, we once again note that the presence of real data helps improve zero-shot performance in Tables 3,4. Since zero-shot tasks contain well-written Q/A pairs, this effect is not as evident as that for perplexities on real data.
Hungarian National High School ExamThis evaluation benchmark is first introduced by Grok-1 (xAI, 2023), which is designed for evaluating the out-of-domain capability of math models. It consists of 33 challenging problems.
We propose CodecLM, a general framework for generating high-quality instruction-response pairs tailored to different downstream tasks and LLMs, eliminating the need for human annotation. See Figure 2 for method overview.
We find that, simply via a sampling-and-voting method, the performance of large language models (LLMs) scales with the number of agents instantiated. Also, this method is orthogonal to existing complicated methods to further enhance LLMs, while the degree of enhancement is correlated to the task difficulty. We conduct comprehensive experiments on a wide range of LLM benchmarks to verify the presence of our finding, and to study the properties that can facilitate its occurrence. Our code is publicly available at: Git.
**Background.** LLMs have shown remarkable capabilities in a wide range of NLP tasks [55, 56, 67, 90]. However, these models may sometimes exhibit unintended behaviors, _e.g._, fabricating false information, pursuing inaccurate objectives, and producing harmful, misleading, and biased expressions [66, 366]. For LLMs, the language modeling objective pre-trains the model parameters by word prediction while lacking the consideration of human values or preferences. To avert these unexpected behaviors, human alignment has been proposed to make LLMs act in line with human expectations [66, 367]. However, unlike the original pre-training and adaptation tuning (_e.g._, instruction tuning), such an alignment requires considering very different criteria (_e.g._, helpfulness, honesty, and harmlessness). It has been shown that alignment might harm the general abilities of LLMs to some extent, which is called _alignment tax_ in related literature [368].
* Training on \(\mathsf{bioS}^{\mathsf{simple}}\) data for 1000 exposures equals 1000 passes over the data. * Training on \(\mathsf{bioS}\) data for 1000 exposures is less than 1 pass. * Training on \(\mathsf{bioR}\) data for 1000 exposures equals 25 passes.
_Divine Rivuls is an intricate narrative set in a dystopian world at war, invoked by two resurrected rival detities, Erwa and Dacre. The plot centres around Iris Winnow, a sensitive and tenacious employee at the Catha Gazette newspaper in the city of Catha, and her professional rival Roman Kitt. Iris is uncurrollit ille spirish into chaos with her brother, Forest, joining the gods' uur, lerque her vithin the responsibility of their alcoholic mother, Aster. Cought in a whirlord of personal and professional rivalry, Iris's bond with Roman depers in unexpected turse when Roman amounously receives and responds to Iris's emotionally rare letters intended for Forest. Iris uses a magical turseytter to send these tiers, lading to an anonymous correspondence that amplifies their unspoken connection. Roman's social standing is a stark contrast to Iris's modest background, he is estimated to a high society woman, Elinor Little, and faces the challenges of striking a balance between his family's aspirations and his new role at Cath Gazette. Following their mother's sudden passing, Iris impulsively resigns from her job at Catha Gazette. Detrimed to locate Forest and report on the escalating gods' uur, she accepts a position as a uur correspondent with the Inridridate Tribune newspaper. Iris embratus on a perious journey to Ataban Blif, a town near the uur front, accompanied by another correspondent, Then "Attie" Attworod. Their hostess in the erie tours, Marsiol Torres, warns the pair about the regular thrust from different mythical creatures such as hounds and eiltratus that desolitate their surroundings. Roman's arrival in Ataban Blif reignies their convoluted relationship. He assists Iris in documenting the harrowing realities of the war while managing the growing tension between them. As Roman becomes severely injured during a horricite encounter at the wavefront, Iris, who has grown deeply linked in reporting the soldiers' personal narratives, fights her uuy to ensure his safety. This life-threatening event leads Iris to recognise Roman as Carrer, her mysterious pen part, triggering an intense turnout of guilt and suspicion over Roman's shortage. Amid her growing concern for Roman's fate and her convited feelings about his description, a shocking twist reveals that Forest, previously presumed dead, has surried and fought for Dacre, the enemy detips. Further ensuing chaos sees Roman disappear, leaving Iris prepared between her obligations towards her effectively nationous brother and the desperate search for her missing lose interest. "Diving Rivuls' intervenes Iris's personal story of resilience and growth against the hockdrop of an escalating war. As she metamorphoses from a correspondent to a key player in the uur, Iris embodies the human spirit's ability to endure and adapt amidst ancestry. The narrative encapsulates the strength of character, familial obligations, professional rivalries, societal norms, and profound transformations at the heart of the story. Despite the evolving relationships and hardships, Iris pledges to remain by Forest's side and continue her search for Roman.
Comparing the performance on IL of the two scenarios, Small and Small-P1\(\rightarrow\)Small-P2, results show that LMs are prone to more forgetting as they go through multiple CKL phases, despite having the same number of training steps. One of the reasons may be due to the learning rate scheduling, which is initialized at the start of each phase.
Figure 14: **Empirical Hutter++ Model.** Same setting as in Figure 6. Initial model trained on \(T_{0}=100,000\) samples. No top-p inference or temperature scaling is used. \(\beta=3/2\). In this setting, there is mild model collapse coming from the finite sample bias as well.
While we include the unlikelihood baseline [44] (simply maximizing \(\log p(y_{w}|x)\), the log probability of the preferred response, while minimizing \(\log p(y_{l}|x)\), the log probability of the dispreferred response) in our sentiment experiments, we do not include it as a baseline in either the summarization
Response Generation.We use the same LLM as for evolving to generate the corresponding responses for the evolved instructions. The generation prompt is "<Here is instruction.>".
###PersonU: I've heard about adobo sauce in Mexican cuisine. Can you tell memore about it?
where \(\alpha:=\beta-1\). This is because the normalization constant is \(\sum_{i\geq N}p_{i}=\sum_{i\geq N}i^{-\beta}\asymp N^{-\alpha}\).
where \(L_{i}\) and \(r_{i}\) are validation loss and training mixture proportion of domain \(i\), respectively, while \(c_{i}\), \(k_{i}\), and \(t_{ii}\) are learnable parameters 4.
The key characteristic of our benchmark is that for each logical reasoning problem, we **synthetically generate variants** with **different premise orders.** Specifically, we denote the order that conforms to the ground truth proof with forward chaining as the _forward_ order, where the rule applied in each derivation step is sequentially presented in the problem description. Intuitively, presenting premises in the forward order simplifies the problem for humans, as this allows us to write the proof on-the-fly while reading the premises. Conversely, a premise ordering that is more random increases the task difficulty, since carrying out the derivation requires us to repetitively look for premises for each reasoning step. Motivated by this intuition, we categorize different premise orders based on their Kendall tau distance \(\tau\)(Cicirello, 2019; Sen, 1968) to the forward order, normalized into the range \([-1,1]\). Specifically, \(\tau=1\) is the _forward_ order, and we denote the order with \(\tau=-1\) as the _backward_ order, which is the reverse of the forward order and aligns with the proof via backward chaining. \(\tau\approx 0\) suggests that there is no strong correlation between the premise order in the problem description and the proof. To thoroughly investigate the LLM preference on different premise orders, we evaluate the model performance on \(\tau=0.5\), \(0\) and \(-0.5\), in addition to the forward (\(\tau=1\)) and backward (\(\tau=-1\)) orders. We present examples with \(\tau=1\) and \(0\) in Figure 1, and defer examples with other \(\tau\) values to Figure 11 in Appendix B.
**Improvement for Random Sampling.** Sampling-based methods sample the token over the whole vocabulary, which may select wrong or irrelevant tokens (_e.g._, "happy" and "Boh" in Figure 10) based on the context. To improve the generation quality, several strategies have been proposed for mitigating or preventing the selection of words with exceedingly low probabilities.
\(\bullet\) Bowen Zheng: implement the experiments for evaluation on tool manipulation tasks.
1. Improved performance: HIIT can improve athletic performance by increasing muscle strength, endurance, and power. It can also improve speed, agility, and coordination.
IndexingThe process starts with indexing, which establishes an organized system to enable fast and accurate retrieval of information. The specificity of indexing depends on the task and data type. For example, sentence-level indexing is beneficial for question-answering systems to precisely locate answers, while document-level indexing is more appropriate for summarizing documents to understand their main concepts and ideas.
Figure 7: (Left) Our method increases the performance for each step. Blue bars show the accuracy of various steps for a single sample, and orange bars show the gains for 40 samples. (Middle) Step-wise sampling-and-voting can further enhance the performance across different levels of inherent difficulty. (Right) Hierarchical sampling-and-voting can further enhance the performance with homogeneous and heterogeneous model combinations.
Figure 7: \(W\)-error as \(d\) increases, for different tokenizers and datasets. We observe that while W-error can be halved using 1000 or 2000 dimensions, it only becomes negligible after 10,000-15,000 dimensions.
The access manager orchestrates access control operations among distinct agents by administering a dedicated privilege group for each agent. Those other agents that are excluded from an agent's privilege group are denied access to its resources, such as the interaction history. To further enhance system transparency, the access manager compiles and maintains auditing logs.
**Patient Actor Ratings.** Figure 4 presents the various conversation qualities patient actors assessed following their consultations with the OSCE agents. Overall, AMIE's consultations were rated significantly better (\(p<0.05\)) by patient actors than those from PCPs across 24 of 26 axes. No significant differences in ratings were detected for the two PCCBP axes "Respecting Patient's Privacy" (N=108) and "Acknowledging Mistakes" (N=41). For the latter criterion, the number of exclusions was substantially higher since the question applied only when mistakes were made by the OSCE agent and pointed out in the conversation.
DatasetTo comprehensively understand how LLMs work with different abilities, we employ four different kinds of tasks including MGSM Shi et al. (2022) for reasoning task, XQuAD Artetxe et al. (2020) for NLU task, XLSum Hasan et al. (2021) for NLG task, and X-CSQA Lin et al. (2021) for knowledge question answering task. For XL-Sum, we randomly sample \(500\) data points from the whole test set for each language, while for other tasks, we employ the whole test set.
This work raises some important ethical questions, many of which also apply to STaR. For example, it is impossible to know that the reasoning expressed by the model in language accurately represents the internal processing of the model (i.e., faithfulness). In addition, regardless of faithfulness, there are no safeguards against harmful or biased reasoning patterns if the model finds them useful. Relatedly, we note that CommonsenseQA is known to have many biased questions and low-quality answers (Geva et al., 2019), but we use it in line with prior work (Zelikman et al., 2022; Goyal et al., 2023). Thus, aside from improving language modeling, it is unclear in what capacity the rationales themselves should be used.