亚洲男人的天堂2018av,欧美草比,久久久久久免费视频精选,国色天香在线看免费,久久久久亚洲av成人片仓井空

Sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) is a neural architecture design that can be utilized to add learnable parameters to Large Language Models (LLMs) without increasing inference cost. Instruction tuning is a technique for training LLMs to follow instructions. We advocate combining these two approaches, as we find that MoE models benefit more from instruction tuning than dense models. In particular, we conduct empirical studies across three experimental setups: (i) Direct finetuning on individual downstream tasks devoid of instruction tuning; (ii) Instructiontuning followed by in-context few-shot or zero-shot generalization on downstream tasks; and (iii) Instruction tuning supplemented by further finetuning on individual downstream tasks. In the first scenario, MoE models overall underperform dense models of identical computational capacity. This narrative, however, dramatically changes with the introduction of instruction tuning (second and third scenario), used independently or in conjunction with task-specific finetuning. Our most powerful model, FLAN-MOE-32B, surpasses the performance of FLAN-PALM-62B on four benchmark tasks, while using only a third of the FLOPs. The advancements embodied byFLAN-MOE inspire a reevaluation of the design principles of large-scale, high-performance language models in the framework of task-agnostic learning.

While many natural language inference (NLI) datasets target certain semantic phenomena, e.g., negation, tense & aspect, monotonicity, and presupposition, to the best of our knowledge, there is no NLI dataset that involves diverse types of spatial expressions and reasoning. We fill this gap by semi-automatically creating an NLI dataset for spatial reasoning, called SpaceNLI. The data samples are automatically generated from a curated set of reasoning patterns, where the patterns are annotated with inference labels by experts. We test several SOTA NLI systems on SpaceNLI to gauge the complexity of the dataset and the system's capacity for spatial reasoning. Moreover, we introduce a Pattern Accuracy and argue that it is a more reliable and stricter measure than the accuracy for evaluating a system's performance on pattern-based generated data samples. Based on the evaluation results we find that the systems obtain moderate results on the spatial NLI problems but lack consistency per inference pattern. The results also reveal that non-projective spatial inferences (especially due to the "between" preposition) are the most challenging ones.

For safety, AI systems in health undergo thorough evaluations before deployment, validating their predictions against a ground truth that is assumed certain. However, this is actually not the case and the ground truth may be uncertain. Unfortunately, this is largely ignored in standard evaluation of AI models but can have severe consequences such as overestimating the future performance. To avoid this, we measure the effects of ground truth uncertainty, which we assume decomposes into two main components: annotation uncertainty which stems from the lack of reliable annotations, and inherent uncertainty due to limited observational information. This ground truth uncertainty is ignored when estimating the ground truth by deterministically aggregating annotations, e.g., by majority voting or averaging. In contrast, we propose a framework where aggregation is done using a statistical model. Specifically, we frame aggregation of annotations as posterior inference of so-called plausibilities, representing distributions over classes in a classification setting, subject to a hyper-parameter encoding annotator reliability. Based on this model, we propose a metric for measuring annotation uncertainty and provide uncertainty-adjusted metrics for performance evaluation. We present a case study applying our framework to skin condition classification from images where annotations are provided in the form of differential diagnoses. The deterministic adjudication process called inverse rank normalization (IRN) from previous work ignores ground truth uncertainty in evaluation. Instead, we present two alternative statistical models: a probabilistic version of IRN and a Plackett-Luce-based model. We find that a large portion of the dataset exhibits significant ground truth uncertainty and standard IRN-based evaluation severely over-estimates performance without providing uncertainty estimates.

The advent of large language models trained on code (code LLMs) has led to significant progress in language-to-code generation. State-of-the-art approaches in this area combine LLM decoding with sample pruning and reranking using test cases or heuristics based on the execution results. However, it is challenging to obtain test cases for many real-world language-to-code applications, and heuristics cannot well capture the semantic features of the execution results, such as data type and value range, which often indicates the correctness of the program. In this work, we propose LEVER, a simple approach to improve language-to-code generation by learning to verify the generated programs with their execution results. Specifically, we train verifiers to determine whether a program sampled from the LLMs is correct or not based on the natural language input, the program itself and its execution results. The sampled programs are reranked by combining the verification score with the LLM generation probability, and marginalizing over programs with the same execution results. On four datasets across the domains of table QA, math QA and basic Python programming, LEVER consistently improves over the base code LLMs(4.6% to 10.9% with code-davinci-002) and achieves new state-of-the-art results on all of them.

Large language models (LLMs) have garnered significant attention, but the definition of "large" lacks clarity. This paper focuses on medium-sized language models (MLMs), defined as having at least six billion parameters but less than 100 billion. The study evaluates MLMs regarding zero-shot generative question answering, which requires models to provide elaborate answers without external document retrieval. The paper introduces an own test dataset and presents results from human evaluation. Results show that combining the best answers from different MLMs yielded an overall correct answer rate of 82.7% which is better than the 60.9% of ChatGPT. The best MLM achieved 71.8% and has 33B parameters, which highlights the importance of using appropriate training data for fine-tuning rather than solely relying on the number of parameters. More fine-grained feedback should be used to further improve the quality of answers. The open source community is quickly closing the gap to the best commercial models.

Unlike traditional unsupervised clustering, semi-supervised clustering allows users to provide meaningful structure to the data, which helps the clustering algorithm to match the user's intent. Existing approaches to semi-supervised clustering require a significant amount of feedback from an expert to improve the clusters. In this paper, we ask whether a large language model can amplify an expert's guidance to enable query-efficient, few-shot semi-supervised text clustering. We show that LLMs are surprisingly effective at improving clustering. We explore three stages where LLMs can be incorporated into clustering: before clustering (improving input features), during clustering (by providing constraints to the clusterer), and after clustering (using LLMs post-correction). We find incorporating LLMs in the first two stages can routinely provide significant improvements in cluster quality, and that LLMs enable a user to make trade-offs between cost and accuracy to produce desired clusters. We release our code and LLM prompts for the public to use.

In-context learning (ICL) performs tasks by prompting a large language model (LLM) using an instruction and a small set of annotated examples called demonstrations. Recent work has shown that the precise details of the inputs used in the prompt significantly impacts ICL, which has incentivized instruction selection algorithms. The effect of instruction-choice however is severely underexplored, with existing analyses being restricted to shallow subsets of models and tasks, which limits the generalizability of their insights. We develop an ICL evaluation suite to conduct a thorough assessment of these techniques. The suite includes 13 open-sourced LLMs of varying scales from 4 distinct model families and covers 9 different tasks, representing a range of task types across 3 categories. In this work, we evaluate the relative performance of 7 popular instruction selection methods using our benchmark over five desiderata relevant to ICL. We discover that using curated manually-written instructions and simple instructions without any task-specific descriptions often elicits superior ICL performance than that of automatic instruction-induction methods, pointing to a lack of generalizability among the latter. We release our evaluation suite for benchmarking instruction selection approaches, and call for more rigorous and generalizable methods in this space.

Parallel software codes in high performance computing (HPC) continue to grow in complexity and scale as we enter the exascale era. A diverse set of emerging hardware and programming paradigms make developing, optimizing, and maintaining parallel software burdensome for developers. One way to alleviate some of these burdens is with automated development and analysis tools. Such tools can perform complex and/or remedial tasks for developers that increase their productivity and decrease the chance for error. So far, such tools for code development and performance analysis have been limited in the complexity of tasks they can perform. However, with recent advancements in language modeling, and the wealth of code related data that is now available online, these tools have started to utilize predictive language models to automate more complex tasks. In this paper, we show how large language models (LLMs) can be applied to tasks specific to high performance and scientific codes. We train LLMs using code and performance data that is specific to parallel codes. We compare several recent LLMs on HPC related tasks and introduce a new model, HPC-Coder, trained on parallel code. In our experiments we show that this model can auto-complete HPC functions where general models cannot, decorate for loops with OpenMP pragmas, and model performance changes in two scientific application repositories.

While recent studies on semi-supervised learning have shown remarkable progress in leveraging both labeled and unlabeled data, most of them presume a basic setting of the model is randomly initialized. In this work, we consider semi-supervised learning and transfer learning jointly, leading to a more practical and competitive paradigm that can utilize both powerful pre-trained models from source domain as well as labeled/unlabeled data in the target domain. To better exploit the value of both pre-trained weights and unlabeled target examples, we introduce adaptive consistency regularization that consists of two complementary components: Adaptive Knowledge Consistency (AKC) on the examples between the source and target model, and Adaptive Representation Consistency (ARC) on the target model between labeled and unlabeled examples. Examples involved in the consistency regularization are adaptively selected according to their potential contributions to the target task. We conduct extensive experiments on several popular benchmarks including CUB-200-2011, MIT Indoor-67, MURA, by fine-tuning the ImageNet pre-trained ResNet-50 model. Results show that our proposed adaptive consistency regularization outperforms state-of-the-art semi-supervised learning techniques such as Pseudo Label, Mean Teacher, and MixMatch. Moreover, our algorithm is orthogonal to existing methods and thus able to gain additional improvements on top of MixMatch and FixMatch. Our code is available at //github.com/SHI-Labs/Semi-Supervised-Transfer-Learning.