Link to paper

The full paper is available here.

You can also find the paper on PapersWithCode here.

Abstract

  • Instruction tuning enables language models to perform new tasks from natural language descriptions
  • Unnatural Instructions is a large dataset of creative and diverse instructions, collected with virtually no human labor
  • Unnatural Instructions contains approximately 240,000 examples of instructions, inputs, and outputs
  • Training on Unnatural Instructions rivals the effectiveness of training on open-source manually-curated datasets

Paper Content

Introduction

  • Instruction tuning enables pretrained language models to generalize to unseen tasks in a zero-shot setting
  • Data can be collected by reformulating existing NLP datasets in an explicit instruction-input-output format
  • Alternatively, user-generated prompts can be collected
  • Process requires only 15 instruction examples to produce 64,000 diverse triplets of instructions, inputs, and outputs
  • More than 50% of generated examples are correct, and incorrect examples contain valuable information
  • Unnatural Instructions contains highly creative tasks and has a more diverse set of instructions than Super-Natural Instructions
  • Experiments show that fine-tuning on Unnatural Instructions outperforms other models on several benchmarks
  • Log-linear relationship between number of generated examples and downstream task performance
  • Language models can produce creative and diverse data faster and cheaper than human labor

Data collection

  • Unnatural Instructions is a dataset of 240,670 natural language instructions.
  • It was collected in an automatic process with only 15 manually-constructed examples.
  • The dataset was expanded by rephrasing structured instructions in free-form natural language.

Core dataset generation

  • Core dataset consists of examples in a structured format
  • Use stochastic decoding to generate example inputs
  • Use deterministic decoding to generate outputs
  • Each example contains four fields: instruction, input argument, constraints, and output
  • Generate examples by prompting a model with three task demonstrations
  • Apply three automatic filters to remove incorrect examples
  • Generate outputs by conditioning a pretrained language model with instruction, input argument, and constraints

Template expansion

  • Examples in the Unnatural Instructions core dataset have a strict instruction-input-output format
  • To increase format diversity, language model is used to reformulate tasks
  • Two alternative formulations are collected for each generated task
  • Input is embedded into the task description using an “{INPUT}” placeholder
  • More than 97.5% of instructions have two valid and distinct alternative formulations

Data analysis

  • Creativity is a major challenge when creating a general-purpose instructions dataset
  • 200 examples were manually analyzed
  • A good experiment should have a single independent variable and multiple dependent variables
  • Task is to correct errors in a recipe for baking muffins
  • Task is to determine if characters in a text are static or dynamic
  • Task is to generate a limerick given two rhyming words
  • Unnatural Instructions tend to be more diverse than Super-Natural Instructions
  • Unnatural Instructions inputs tend to be less similar to each other than Super-Natural Instructions

Experimental setup

  • Used Unnatural Instructions to fine-tune models
  • Followed standard practice for fine-tuning (batch size of 16, 3 epochs)

Baselines

  • Compared Unnatural Instructions to a variety of models based on T5-11B
  • T0++ is an instruction-tuned variant of T5-LM
  • Compared utility of original manually-curated instructions in Super-Natural Instructions
  • Trained a model identical to ours but with different data, base model, and training hyperparameters

Evaluation

  • Evaluated models on four different benchmarks
  • Measured range of capabilities in a zero-shot setting
  • Evaluated on Super-Natural Instructions using Rouge-L
  • Evaluated on T0: Zero-Shot using rank classification and accuracy
  • Evaluated on “hard” subset of BIGbench in two formats
  • Evaluated on LMentry using greedy decoding and LMentry score

Results

  • Table 4 shows that T5-LM finetuned on Unnatural Instructions outperforms several strong instruction-tuned baselines.
  • Retraining a model on Super-Natural Instructions reveals a much stronger performance than Tk-Instruct.
  • Unnatural Instructions leads to stronger or equal performance for every dataset except Super-Natural Instructions itself.
  • T5-LM finetuned on Unnatural Instructions is outperformed by FLAN-T5, but the amount of training data for this model is larger.
  • Automated data generation with pretrained LMs is a viable and cost-effective alternative to human-curated data.

Performance with template expansion

  • Adding instruction paraphrases boosts performance on 3 benchmarks.
  • Models trained on the core dataset rely too much on the specific format and style of Super-Natural Instructions.
  • Template expansion successfully addresses this issue.

Performance scaling by dataset size

  • Generating more data adds a valuable signal to training data
  • Template expansion process is beneficial when controlling for dataset size
  • Added value of paraphrases is likely to be in terms of format diversity

Performance scaling by cost

  • Performance is measured as a function of the cost for obtaining training data
  • OpenAI’s pricing as of December 2022 estimates cost of generating an example at $0.02 for core dataset and $0.01 for expanded dataset
  • Human annotation cost estimated at $0.50-$1.00 per example, excluding indirect costs
  • Unnatural Instructions is more cost-efficient than manually curated data

Data collection ablations

  • Conducted structural prompt ablations to explore effect of different components of data collection pipeline
  • Trained models for 1,500 steps using 2,000 examples
  • Evaluated Super-Natural Instructions validation set performance, averaged across three different random seeds

Generative model

  • Used text-davinci-002, an instruction-tuned variant of GPT-3
  • Experimented with generating examples using the original (untuned) GPT-3 model
  • Replacing an instruction-tuned model with a vanilla model affects the quality of the data
  • Generating outputs requires some level of instruction tuning
  • Outputs generated by GPT-3 suffer from the model’s inability to stop

Meta-prompts

  • Language models are sensitive to the meta-prompt.
  • Three different metaprompt styles were experimented with.
  • Results show that the enumeration approach elicits more informative examples than the other two.
  • Surprisingly, the verbose meta-prompt performs worse than the minimalistic one.

In-context examples

  • Models are sensitive to slight variations in prompt content
  • Performance differences occur when provided with different demonstrations from the same dataset
  • Performance differences occur when permuting the in-context demonstrations
  • Experiments conducted with each of five demonstration sets separately
  • Data generation pipeline is largely robust to variations in the in-context demonstrations

Constraints

  • The constraints field details the task’s output space restrictions.
  • Adding the constraints field may emphasize these restrictions and steer the output generation model.
  • Two ablation experiments were conducted to verify the hypothesis.
  • Removing the constraints field from the data generation pipeline reduces performance.

Two-step process

  • An alternative to the two-step pipeline is to generate instruction-input-output triplets in one pass.
  • One-step generation obtains a score that is lower by 1.7 than the default two-step process.
  • The gap is likely due to using stochastic decoding in the unified input-output generation phase.
  • Instruction Tuning proposed by Efrat and Levy (2020) uses natural language instructions to learn new tasks.
  • State-of-the-art performance on NLI benchmarks achieved by Dagan et al. (2006) and Bowman et al. (2015).
  • Liu et al. (2022a) use human annotators and GPT-3 to create NLI examples.
  • Schick and Schütze (2021b) use pretrained language models to generate labeled text pairs.
  • Agrawal et al. (2022) use pretrained language models to create multilingual QA data.
  • Unnatural Instructions is the first work to generate a large-scale general-purpose dataset.

Conclusion

  • Introduce Unnatural Instructions, an automatically generated dataset of natural language instructions and their corresponding inputs and outputs
  • Experiments show models trained on Unnatural Instructions can outperform models trained on manually annotated datasets
  • Unnatural Instructions is cost-effective and provides enhanced diversity in instructions and a high level of creativity in tasks
  • Models without instruction tuning can generate useful instructions, but struggle with producing outputs
  • Utilizing models for general-purpose data generation is an intriguing direction for future research
  • Hyperparameters used for finetuning experiments with T5-LM
  • Evaluate model performance on Super-Natural Instructions, T0: Zero-Shot and LMEntry
  • Cluster instructions into task types and measure the number of unique task types
  • Compare Unnatural Instructions with Super-Natural Instructions
  • Performance of several models on four benchmarks
  • Performance of 11B T5-LM models trained on 2,000 examples on Super-Natural Instructions validation set
  • Human-and-model-in-the-loop dataset creation suggested by Nie et al. (2020)