pith. sign in

arxiv: 2312.04945 · v1 · pith:TZ7WSOGTnew · submitted 2023-12-08 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI· cs.LG

The ICL Consistency Test

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG
keywords consistencysetupsdifferentlackmetricmodelmodelstest
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Just like the previous generation of task-tuned models, large language models (LLMs) that are adapted to tasks via prompt-based methods like in-context-learning (ICL) perform well in some setups but not in others. This lack of consistency in prompt-based learning hints at a lack of robust generalisation. We here introduce the ICL consistency test -- a contribution to the GenBench collaborative benchmark task (CBT) -- which evaluates how consistent a model makes predictions across many different setups while using the same data. The test is based on different established natural language inference tasks. We provide preprocessed data constituting 96 different 'setups' and a metric that estimates model consistency across these setups. The metric is provided on a fine-grained level to understand what properties of a setup render predictions unstable and on an aggregated level to compare overall model consistency. We conduct an empirical analysis of eight state-of-the-art models, and our consistency metric reveals how all tested LLMs lack robust generalisation.

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 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Models

    cs.CL 2024-05 accept novelty 6.0

    The paper compiles practical lessons on reproducible LM evaluation and introduces the lm-eval library to mitigate common methodological problems in NLP.

  2. Understanding the Prompt Sensitivity

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    LLMs disperse meaning-preserving prompts internally instead of clustering them, which produces an excessively high upper bound on output log-probability differences via Taylor expansion and Cauchy-Schwarz.