Is It Good Data for Multilingual Instruction Tuning or Just Bad Multilingual Evaluation for Large Language Models?

Overview

• Large language models are designed to serve speakers of diverse languages, but the current practices of fine-tuning and evaluating these models may not align with this goal.
• The use of translated data in both training and evaluation stages can introduce artifacts and defects that may impact model performance.
• This work investigates the impact of using native vs. translated data for instruction tuning and evaluation, and explores the role of regularization in bridging any performance gaps.

Plain English Explanation

Large language models are powerful AI systems that can understand and generate human-like text in multiple languages. The researchers behind this study wanted to see if the way these models are currently fine-tuned (a process of further training them on specific tasks) and evaluated (tested to measure their performance) is actually well-suited for serving speakers of different languages.

The key issue is that a lot of the training and testing data used for these models is often translated from one language to another. This translation process can introduce small errors or changes that might not be captured by the standard evaluation methods. As a result, the models' true capabilities in handling diverse languages may be misrepresented.

To investigate this, the researchers ran experiments using either native (original) language data or translated data during the fine-tuning and evaluation stages. They looked at how the models' performance differed depending on the type of data used. Interestingly, they found that the models performed notably better on native-language tasks compared to translated tasks, especially when their overall performance was high.

The researchers also explored whether applying certain regularization techniques (methods to prevent overfitting) could help bridge the gap between native and translated data performance. They found that regularization was helpful for structured tasks, but not as effective for more open-ended, generative tasks.

Technical Explanation

The researchers hypothesized that the current practices of fine-tuning and evaluating multilingual language models may not align with their intended purpose of serving diverse language speakers. Specifically, they were concerned about the heavy reliance on translated data, which could introduce artifacts and defects.

To investigate this, they conducted experiments using eight different base models and eight benchmark tasks. They compared model performance when using either native or translated data for the instruction tuning stage and the evaluation stage. The experiments revealed that on native or generation-based benchmarks, there was a notable difference in performance between native and translated instruction data, particularly when the models' overall performance was high.

Interestingly, other types of test sets did not consistently capture this performance gap. The researchers attributed this to the potential mismatch between the translation artifacts introduced during training and the characteristics of the evaluation data.

Furthermore, the study explored the role of regularization in bridging the performance gap between native and translated data. They found that regularization techniques were beneficial for structured tasks, but not as effective for more open-ended, generative tasks.

Critical Analysis

The researchers acknowledge that their study is limited in scope and does not explore all possible factors that may contribute to the observed performance differences. For example, they did not investigate the impact of different translation approaches or the quality of the translation data used.

Additionally, the paper does not delve into the specific nature of the translation artifacts or defects that may be introduced and how they might differentially impact the various benchmark tasks. Further research would be needed to understand the underlying mechanisms driving the performance gaps.

It is also worth considering whether the observed patterns would hold true for a wider range of language models and tasks, or if they are specific to the particular models and benchmarks examined in this study.

Conclusion

This research highlights the potential mismatch between the intended multilingual capabilities of large language models and the current practices of fine-tuning and evaluating them. The findings suggest that the use of translated data in both training and evaluation stages may not fully capture the models' true performance in handling diverse languages.

The study's insights underscore the importance of carefully designing evaluation protocols and considering the impact of translation artifacts on model performance. As the field of large language models continues to advance, it will be crucial to ensure that these powerful systems are developed and assessed in a way that truly serves the needs of speakers from around the world.