The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2405.17915 · v1 · pith:H736W5G2 · submitted 2024-05-28 · cs.CL

Long Context is Not Long at All: A Prospector of Long-Dependency Data for Large Language Models

Reviewed by Pithpith:H736W5G2open to challenge →

classification cs.CL
keywords longdependencytrainingdependenciesllmslong-contextmodelingprolong
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Long-context modeling capabilities are important for large language models (LLMs) in various applications. However, directly training LLMs with long context windows is insufficient to enhance this capability since some training samples do not exhibit strong semantic dependencies across long contexts. In this study, we propose a data mining framework \textbf{ProLong} that can assign each training sample with a long dependency score, which can be used to rank and filter samples that are more advantageous for enhancing long-context modeling abilities in LLM training. Specifically, we first use delta perplexity scores to measure the \textit{Dependency Strength} between text segments in a given document. Then we refine this metric based on the \textit{Dependency Distance} of these segments to incorporate spatial relationships across long-contexts. Final results are calibrated with a \textit{Dependency Specificity} metric to prevent trivial dependencies introduced by repetitive patterns. Moreover, a random sampling approach is proposed to optimize the computational efficiency of ProLong. Comprehensive experiments on multiple benchmarks indicate that ProLong effectively identifies documents that carry long dependencies and LLMs trained on these documents exhibit significantly enhanced long-context modeling capabilities.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Ten Headache Specialists versus Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Literature Summarization: A Critical Evaluation and Comparison

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Headache specialists preferred their own literature summaries over those from Sonnet, GPT-4o, and Llama 3.1 in a blinded evaluation, though AI summaries were sometimes indistinguishable.