Cited by 268Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

Super-NaturalInstructions: Generalization via Declarative Instructions on 1600+ NLP Tasks

Open access
Wang, Yizhong, Mishra, Swaroop, Alipoormolabashi, Pegah, Kordi, Yeganeh, Mirzaei, Amirreza, Naik, Atharva, Ashok, Arjun, Dhanasekaran, Arut Selvan +27 more·2022·Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Abstract

Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Atharva Naik, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, Anjana Arunkumar, David Stap, Eshaan Pathak, Giannis Karamanolakis, Haizhi Lai, Ishan Purohit, Ishani Mondal, Jacob Anderson, Kirby Kuznia, Krima Doshi, Kuntal Kumar Pal, Maitreya Patel, Mehrad Moradshahi, Mihir Parmar, Mirali Purohit, Neeraj Varshney, Phani Rohitha Kaza, Pulkit Verma, Ravsehaj Singh Puri, Rushang Karia, Savan Doshi, Shailaja Keyur Sampat, Siddhartha Mishra, Sujan Reddy A, Sumanta Patro, Tanay Dixit, Xudong Shen. Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2022.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.340

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LLMs have been shown to excel at following instructions and comprehending retrieved passages.

    “While LLMs have been shown to excel at these tasks (Wang et al., 2022;Zhong et al., 2023)”

    From MedScore: Generalizable Factuality Evaluation of Open-ended Long-form Medical Answers by Domain-adapted Claim Decomposition and Verification (2026) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2022

    Section 6.1 (page unavailable) reports that instruction-tuned models outperform untuned models and learn to follow instructions on unseen tasks. The retrieved-passage comprehension part is not established: the paper lists question-answering and related tasks, but the passages found do not assess comprehension of retrieved passages specifically. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Alpaca is based on LLAMA and fine-tuned on instructions data based on InstructGPT following the recipe from Wang et al. (2022).

    “Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023) is based on LLAMA (Touvron et al., 2023) fine-tuned on the instructions data based on InstructGPT following the recipe from Wang et al. (2022).”

    From FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation (2023) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2022

    The Heuristic baselines section discusses InstructGPT as a model evaluated by the authors, not as a source of instruction data for Alpaca. Searches for Alpaca, LLaMA, and an InstructGPT-based data-generation recipe found no passage in our copy addressing the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The current limited number of tasks may explain why the models have not yet exhibited emergent abilities to generalize to unseen clinical tasks.

    “The current limited number of tasks may explain why we have not yet observed the models exhibiting emergent abilities to generalize to unseen clinical tasks, a capability seen in LLMs trained on thousands of diverse tasks in the general domain17,22.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Ronan Collobert and Jason Weston. 2008. A unified architecture for natural language processing: Deep neural networks with multitask learning. In Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning (ICML).
  2. Hyeonji Kim, Byeong-Hoon So, Wook-Shin Han, and Hongrae Lee. 2020. Natural language to sql: Where are we today? Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 13(10):1737-1750.
  3. Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022b. Cross-Task Generaliza- tion via Natural Language Crowdsourcing Instruc- tions. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics (ACL).
  4. Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Tr- ishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, An- drea Santilli, Thibault Fevry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Teven Le Scao, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M Rush. 2022. Multi- task Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Gen- eralization. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, Y., Mishra, S., Alipoormolabashi, P., Kordi, Y., Mirzaei, A., Naik, A., Ashok, A., Dhanasekaran, A. S., Arunkumar, A., Stap, D., Pathak, E., Karamanolakis, G., Lai, H., Purohit, I., Mondal, I., Anderson, J., Kuznia, K., Doshi, K., Pal, K. K., Patel, M., Moradshahi, M., Parmar, M., Purohit, M., Varshney, N., Kaza, P. R., Verma, P., Puri, R. S., Karia, R., Doshi, S., Sampat, S. K., Mishra, S., Reddy A, S., Patro, S., Dixit, T., & Shen, X.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
  • Sharif University of Technology (IR)
  • Amirkabir University of Technology (IR)
  • Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur (IN)
  • PSG College of Technology (IN)
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Government Polytechnic College, Rajkot (IN)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Tata Consultancy Services (India) (IN)
  • Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IN)
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Published
2022
Pages
5085-5109
OpenAlex
W4385572845
Cited by
247
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 88
FWCI
29.01
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Arizona State University
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (N66001-19-2-4031, N66001-19)
  • Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014‐18‐1‐2670, N00014-18-1-2826, MURI N00014-18-1-2670, N00014)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
instruction tuning, large language models, natural language instructions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review