Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

How Far Can Camels Go? Exploring the State of Instruction Tuning on Open Resources

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 2306.04751 v2 pith:B2LHYFXE submitted 2023-06-07 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords modelsevaluationevaluationsmodelopenbestdatasetsinstruction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work we explore recent advances in instruction-tuning language models on a range of open instruction-following datasets. Despite recent claims that open models can be on par with state-of-the-art proprietary models, these claims are often accompanied by limited evaluation, making it difficult to compare models across the board and determine the utility of various resources. We provide a large set of instruction-tuned models from 6.7B to 65B parameters in size, trained on 12 instruction datasets ranging from manually curated (e.g., OpenAssistant) to synthetic and distilled (e.g., Alpaca) and systematically evaluate them on their factual knowledge, reasoning, multilinguality, coding, and open-ended instruction following abilities through a collection of automatic, model-based, and human-based metrics. We further introduce T\"ulu, our best performing instruction-tuned model suite finetuned on a combination of high-quality open resources. Our experiments show that different instruction-tuning datasets can uncover or enhance specific skills, while no single dataset (or combination) provides the best performance across all evaluations. Interestingly, we find that model and human preference-based evaluations fail to reflect differences in model capabilities exposed by benchmark-based evaluations, suggesting the need for the type of systemic evaluation performed in this work. Our evaluations show that the best model in any given evaluation reaches on average 87% of ChatGPT performance, and 73% of GPT-4 performance, suggesting that further investment in building better base models and instruction-tuning data is required to close the gap. We release our instruction-tuned models, including a fully finetuned 65B T\"ulu, along with our code, data, and evaluation framework at https://github.com/allenai/open-instruct to facilitate future research.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Decomposing Elements of Problem Solving: What "Math" Does RL Teach?

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Reinforcement learning (GRPO) on math LLMs primarily increases execution robustness on already-solvable problems, not planning or coverage of new problems.

  2. Improving Task Diversity in Label Efficient Supervised Finetuning of LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Weighted Task Diversity allocates the annotation budget across tasks in inverse proportion to the base model's average confidence, improving MMLU and AlpacaEval scores with up to 80% fewer labels.

  3. Improving LLM Safety and Helpfulness using SFT and DPO: A Study on OPT-350M

    cs.CL 2025-09 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    For OPT-350M on the Anthropic HH-RLHF set, SFT plus DPO gives the highest combined helpfulness/harmlessness score, but not the highest safety score.

Pith tools