Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Understanding BLOOM: An empirical study on diverse NLP tasks

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2211.14865 v2 pith:GGD7542J submitted 2022-11-27 cs.CL

Understanding BLOOM: An empirical study on diverse NLP tasks

classification cs.CL
keywords bloommodelsllmsexperimentsfine-tuninggpt-2modelother
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

We view the landscape of large language models (LLMs) through the lens of the recently released BLOOM model to understand the performance of BLOOM and other decoder-only LLMs compared to BERT-style encoder-only models. We achieve this by evaluating the smaller BLOOM model variants (\textit{350m/560m} and \textit{1b3/1b7}) on several NLP benchmark datasets and popular leaderboards. We make the following observations: (1) BLOOM performance does not scale with parameter size, unlike other LLMs like GPT and BERT. Experiments fine-tuning BLOOM models show that the 560m variant performs similarly to or better than the 1b7 variant, (2) Zero-shot cross-lingual and multi-lingual fine-tuning experiments show that BLOOM is at par or worse than monolingual GPT-2 models, and (3) Toxicity analysis of prompt-based text generation using the RealToxicityPrompts dataset shows that the text generated by BLOOM is at least 17\% less toxic than GPT-2 and GPT-3 models.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.