LaMini-LM: A Diverse Herd of Distilled Models from Large-Scale Instructions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) with instruction fine-tuning demonstrate superior generative capabilities. However, these models are resource-intensive. To alleviate this issue, we explore distilling knowledge from instruction-tuned LLMs into much smaller ones. While other similar works have been done, they are often conducted on a limited set of (usually still large) models and are not accompanied by proper evaluations. To this end, we carefully develop a large set of 2.58M instructions based on both existing and newly-generated instructions. In addition to being sizable, we design our instructions to cover a broad set of topics to ensure diversity. Extensive analysis of our instruction dataset confirms its diversity, and we generate responses for these instructions using gpt-3.5-turbo. Leveraging these instructions, we fine-tune a diverse herd of models, collectively referred to as LaMini-LM, which includes models from both the encoder-decoder and decoder-only families, with varying sizes. We evaluate the performance of our models using automatic metrics on 15 different natural language processing (NLP) benchmarks, as well as through human assessment. We also assess the model for hallucination and toxicity, and for the former, we introduce a new benchmark dataset for hallucination-inducing QA. The results demonstrate that our proposed LaMini-LM models are comparable to strong baselines while being much smaller in size.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it