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

Large vision-language models have achieved outstanding performance, but their size and computational requirements make their deployment on resource-constrained devices and time-sensitive tasks impractical. Model distillation, the process of creating smaller, faster models that maintain the performance of larger models, is a promising direction towards the solution. This paper investigates the distillation of visual representations in large teacher vision-language models into lightweight student models using a small- or mid-scale dataset. Notably, this study focuses on open-vocabulary out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization, a challenging problem that has been overlooked in previous model distillation literature. We propose two principles from vision and language modality perspectives to enhance student's OOD generalization: (1) by better imitating teacher's visual representation space, and carefully promoting better coherence in vision-language alignment with the teacher; (2) by enriching the teacher's language representations with informative and finegrained semantic attributes to effectively distinguish between different labels. We propose several metrics and conduct extensive experiments to investigate their techniques. The results demonstrate significant improvements in zero-shot and few-shot student performance on open-vocabulary out-of-distribution classification, highlighting the effectiveness of our proposed approaches. Our code will be released at //github.com/xuanlinli17/large_vlm_distillation_ood

The widespread usage of latent language representations via pre-trained language models (LMs) suggests that they are a promising source of structured knowledge. However, existing methods focus only on a single object per subject-relation pair, even though often multiple objects are correct. To overcome this limitation, we analyze these representations for their potential to yield materialized multi-object relational knowledge. We formulate the problem as a rank-then-select task. For ranking candidate objects, we evaluate existing prompting techniques and propose new ones incorporating domain knowledge. Among the selection methods, we find that choosing objects with a likelihood above a learned relation-specific threshold gives a 49.5% F1 score. Our results highlight the difficulty of employing LMs for the multi-valued slot-filling task and pave the way for further research on extracting relational knowledge from latent language representations.

Large language models (LLMs) are gaining increasing popularity in both academia and industry, owing to their unprecedented performance in various applications. As LLMs continue to play a vital role in both research and daily use, their evaluation becomes increasingly critical, not only at the task level, but also at the society level for better understanding of their potential risks. Over the past years, significant efforts have been made to examine LLMs from various perspectives. This paper presents a comprehensive review of these evaluation methods for LLMs, focusing on three key dimensions: what to evaluate, where to evaluate, and how to evaluate. Firstly, we provide an overview from the perspective of evaluation tasks, encompassing general natural language processing tasks, reasoning, medical usage, ethics, educations, natural and social sciences, agent applications, and other areas. Secondly, we answer the `where' and `how' questions by diving into the evaluation methods and benchmarks, which serve as crucial components in assessing performance of LLMs. Then, we summarize the success and failure cases of LLMs in different tasks. Finally, we shed light on several future challenges that lie ahead in LLMs evaluation. Our aim is to offer invaluable insights to researchers in the realm of LLMs evaluation, thereby aiding the development of more proficient LLMs. Our key point is that evaluation should be treated as an essential discipline to better assist the development of LLMs. We consistently maintain the related open-source materials at: //github.com/MLGroupJLU/LLM-eval-survey.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, accurately and comprehensively evaluating their performance becomes increasingly challenging. Conventionally, human evaluations are considered the gold standard in natural language generation. Recent advancements incorporate state-of-the-art LLMs as proxies for human judges in evaluation processes. Nonetheless, the extent to which humans and LLMs are capable evaluators remains uncertain. This study aims to investigate the behavior of both crowd-sourced human and LLM-based judges when comparing outputs from different models. To accomplish this, we curate a dataset comprising intentionally flawed machine-generated answers. Our findings indicate that despite the potentially greater danger posed by factual errors, answers with factual errors were still rated more favorably compared to answers that were too short or contained grammatical errors. This highlights a concerning bias in the evaluation process. To address this issue, we propose to independently evaluate machine-generated text across multiple dimensions, rather than merging all the evaluation aspects into a single score. We instantiate this idea with the Elo rating system, resulting in the Multi-Elo Rating System. Empirical results from our study reveal that this proposed approach significantly enhances the quality of LLM-based evaluations, particularly in terms of factual accuracy. However, notable improvement is not observed in crowd-sourced-based evaluations, suggesting the need for further investigation and refinement.

Nowadays, the quality of responses generated by different modern large language models (LLMs) are hard to evaluate and compare automatically. Recent studies suggest and predominantly use LLMs as a reference-free metric for open-ended question answering. More specifically, they use the recognized "strongest" LLM as the evaluator, which conducts pairwise comparisons of candidate models' answers and provides a ranking score. However, this intuitive method has multiple problems, such as bringing in self-enhancement (favoring its own answers) and positional bias. We draw insights and lessons from the educational domain (Cho and MacArthur, 2011; Walsh, 2014) to improve LLM-based evaluations. Specifically, we propose the (1) peer rank (PR) algorithm that takes into account each peer LLM's pairwise preferences of all answer pairs, and outputs a final ranking of models; and (2) peer discussion (PD), where we prompt two LLMs to discuss and try to reach a mutual agreement on preferences of two answers. We conduct experiments on two benchmark datasets. We find that our approaches achieve higher accuracy and align better with human judgments, respectively. Interestingly, PR can induce a relatively accurate self-ranking of models under the anonymous setting, where each model's name is unrevealed. Our work provides space to explore evaluating models that are hard to compare for humans.

Numerous benchmarks for Few-Shot Learning have been proposed in the last decade. However all of these benchmarks focus on performance averaged over many tasks, and the question of how to reliably evaluate and tune models trained for individual tasks in this regime has not been addressed. This paper presents the first investigation into task-level evaluation -- a fundamental step when deploying a model. We measure the accuracy of performance estimators in the few-shot setting, consider strategies for model selection, and examine the reasons for the failure of evaluators usually thought of as being robust. We conclude that cross-validation with a low number of folds is the best choice for directly estimating the performance of a model, whereas using bootstrapping or cross validation with a large number of folds is better for model selection purposes. Overall, we find that existing benchmarks for few-shot learning are not designed in such a way that one can get a reliable picture of how effectively methods can be used on individual tasks.

In recent years, large language models (LLM) have emerged as powerful tools for diverse natural language processing tasks. However, their potential for recommender systems under the generative recommendation paradigm remains relatively unexplored. This paper presents an innovative approach to recommendation systems using large language models (LLMs) based on text data. In this paper, we present a novel LLM for generative recommendation (GenRec) that utilized the expressive power of LLM to directly generate the target item to recommend, rather than calculating ranking score for each candidate item one by one as in traditional discriminative recommendation. GenRec uses LLM's understanding ability to interpret context, learn user preferences, and generate relevant recommendation. Our proposed approach leverages the vast knowledge encoded in large language models to accomplish recommendation tasks. We first we formulate specialized prompts to enhance the ability of LLM to comprehend recommendation tasks. Subsequently, we use these prompts to fine-tune the LLaMA backbone LLM on a dataset of user-item interactions, represented by textual data, to capture user preferences and item characteristics. Our research underscores the potential of LLM-based generative recommendation in revolutionizing the domain of recommendation systems and offers a foundational framework for future explorations in this field. We conduct extensive experiments on benchmark datasets, and the experiments shows that our GenRec has significant better results on large dataset.

Transformer-based large-scale language models (LLMs) are able to generate highly realistic text. They are duly able to express, and at least implicitly represent, a wide range of sentiments and color, from the obvious, such as valence and arousal to the subtle, such as determination and admiration. We provide a first exploration of these representations and how they can be used for understanding the inner sentimental workings of single sentences. We train predictors of the quantiles of the distributions of final sentiments of sentences from the hidden representations of an LLM applied to prefixes of increasing lengths. After showing that predictors of distributions of valence, determination, admiration, anxiety and annoyance are well calibrated, we provide examples of using these predictors for analyzing sentences, illustrating, for instance, how even ordinary conjunctions (e.g., "but") can dramatically alter the emotional trajectory of an utterance. We then show how to exploit the distributional predictions to generate sentences with sentiments in the tails of distributions. We discuss the implications of our results for the inner workings of thoughts, for instance for psychiatric dysfunction.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools in the field of Natural Language Processing (NLP) and have recently gained significant attention in the domain of Recommendation Systems (RS). These models, trained on massive amounts of data using self-supervised learning, have demonstrated remarkable success in learning universal representations and have the potential to enhance various aspects of recommendation systems by some effective transfer techniques such as fine-tuning and prompt tuning, and so on. The crucial aspect of harnessing the power of language models in enhancing recommendation quality is the utilization of their high-quality representations of textual features and their extensive coverage of external knowledge to establish correlations between items and users. To provide a comprehensive understanding of the existing LLM-based recommendation systems, this survey presents a taxonomy that categorizes these models into two major paradigms, respectively Discriminative LLM for Recommendation (DLLM4Rec) and Generative LLM for Recommendation (GLLM4Rec), with the latter being systematically sorted out for the first time. Furthermore, we systematically review and analyze existing LLM-based recommendation systems within each paradigm, providing insights into their methodologies, techniques, and performance. Additionally, we identify key challenges and several valuable findings to provide researchers and practitioners with inspiration.

Recent work pre-training Transformers with self-supervised objectives on large text corpora has shown great success when fine-tuned on downstream NLP tasks including text summarization. However, pre-training objectives tailored for abstractive text summarization have not been explored. Furthermore there is a lack of systematic evaluation across diverse domains. In this work, we propose pre-training large Transformer-based encoder-decoder models on massive text corpora with a new self-supervised objective. In PEGASUS, important sentences are removed/masked from an input document and are generated together as one output sequence from the remaining sentences, similar to an extractive summary. We evaluated our best PEGASUS model on 12 downstream summarization tasks spanning news, science, stories, instructions, emails, patents, and legislative bills. Experiments demonstrate it achieves state-of-the-art performance on all 12 downstream datasets measured by ROUGE scores. Our model also shows surprising performance on low-resource summarization, surpassing previous state-of-the-art results on 6 datasets with only 1000 examples. Finally we validated our results using human evaluation and show that our model summaries achieve human performance on multiple datasets.