Instruction-following Evaluation through Verbalizer Manipulation

Overview

• Existing benchmarks for evaluating instruction-following abilities of language models primarily focus on common instructions that align well with what the model learned during training.
• This may not accurately reflect the model's true ability to follow instructions, as proficiency in responding to these instructions does not necessarily imply strong ability in instruction following.
• The paper proposes a novel instruction-following evaluation protocol called "verbalizer manipulation" to better assess a model's reliance on priors and its ability to override them.

Plain English Explanation

Language models, like GPT-4, have become remarkably skilled at understanding and responding to various types of natural language tasks. However, accurately evaluating their ability to follow instructions remains challenging. Existing benchmarks often use instructions that are well-aligned with what the model has already learned during training, meaning the model can perform these tasks well without necessarily having a strong ability to follow instructions in general.

The researchers in this paper wanted to better understand how well these models can truly follow instructions, even when the instructions may not align with their established biases or "priors." To do this, they developed a new evaluation method called "verbalizer manipulation." This involves instructing the model to use specific words or "verbalizers" to describe the task, even if those words don't naturally match the task.

For example, the model might be asked to classify a piece of text as "positive" sentiment, but instead of using the word "positive," it would be instructed to use the word "negative." This challenges the model to override its learned associations and accurately follow the given instruction, rather than relying on its existing biases.

By applying this verbalizer manipulation approach across various datasets and model families, the researchers were able to gain deeper insights into the instruction-following abilities of state-of-the-art language models. Their findings suggest that even the most powerful models, like GPT-4, can struggle to perform well when the instructions significantly diverge from their learned priors, highlighting the need for continued advancements in this area.

Technical Explanation

The researchers conducted a comprehensive evaluation of four major model families (GPT, BERT, T5, and PaLM) across nine different datasets, using twelve sets of verbalizers for each. The verbalizers ranged from highly aligned with the model's priors (e.g., using "positive" for positive sentiment) to minimally aligned (e.g., using "negative" for positive sentiment).

By integrating the verbalizer manipulation protocol with existing classification benchmarks, the researchers were able to examine the models' reliance on priors and their ability to override them to accurately follow the instructions. They found that the instruction-following abilities of the models, across different families and scales, were significantly distinguished by their performance on the less natural verbalizers.

Even the powerful GPT-4 model struggled to perform better than random guessing on the most challenging verbalizers, suggesting that current state-of-the-art language models still have significant room for improvement when it comes to following instructions that diverge from their learned associations.

Critical Analysis

The paper highlights an important limitation of existing benchmarks for evaluating instruction-following abilities, which primarily focus on instructions that are well-aligned with the model's training data. This raises concerns about whether these benchmarks are truly capturing the full extent of a model's instruction-following capabilities.

While the verbalizer manipulation approach introduced in the paper is a valuable addition to the evaluation toolkit, it is worth considering its own potential limitations. The authors acknowledge that the effectiveness of this approach may depend on the specific task and dataset, and that further research is needed to understand its broader applicability.

Additionally, the paper does not delve into the potential reasons why even the strongest models struggle with the more challenging verbalizers. Further investigation into the underlying mechanisms and biases that contribute to these limitations could provide valuable insights for developing more robust and versatile instruction-following abilities in language models.

Conclusion

This research highlights the need for more nuanced and comprehensive approaches to evaluating the instruction-following capabilities of language models. The verbalizer manipulation protocol introduced in the paper offers a promising way to uncover the limitations of current state-of-the-art models, which may not be fully captured by traditional benchmarks.

As language models continue to advance, the ability to accurately follow instructions that diverge from their learned priors will become increasingly important, particularly for applications where precise and reliable instruction-following is critical. The insights gained from this research can help drive further advancements in this area, ultimately leading to more robust and versatile language models that can better serve the diverse needs of users and applications.