Cited by 21Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesSpeech and dialogue systems

Selecting Better Samples from Pre-trained LLMs: A Case Study on Question Generation

Open access
Yuan, Xingdi, Wang, Tong, Wang, Yen-Hsiang, Fine, Emery, Abdelghani, Rania, Sauzéon, Hélène, Oudeyer, Pierre-Yves·2023·Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have in recent years demonstrated impressive prowess in natural language generation.A common practice to improve generation diversity is to sample multiple outputs from the model.However, partly due to the inaccessibility of LLMs, there lacks a simple and robust way of selecting the best output from these stochastic samples.As a case study framed in the context of question generation, we propose two prompt-based approaches, namely round-trip and prompt-based score, to selecting high-quality questions from a set of LLM-generated candidates.Our method works without the need to modify the underlying model, nor does it rely on human-annotated references -both of which are realistic constraints for real-world deployment of LLMs.With automatic as well as human evaluations, we empirically demonstrate that our approach can effectively select questions of higher qualities than greedy generation. 1 * Equal contribution. 1 We open-source all code and annotated data on github.

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/v1/2023.findings-acl.820

Cites

45 of 45 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?

  • Pre-trained LLMs such as GPT-3 can be sensitive to the specific data points provided as few-shot examples.

    “There are many recent works in the NLP community report that pre-trained LLMs such as GPT-3 can be sensitive to the specific data points provided as few-shot examples [30, 38, 63, 41].”

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: 3

  1. Mikel Artetxe, Gorka Labaka, Eneko Agirre, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2018. Unsupervised neural ma- chine translation. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
  2. Emily M Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan- Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. 2021. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Confer- ence on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 610-623.
  3. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yuan, X., Wang, T., Wang, Y.-H., Fine, E., Abdelghani, R., Sauzéon, H., & Oudeyer, P.-Y.
Affiliations
Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique (FR)
Corresponding author
Wang, Tong
Venue
Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023
Published
2023
Pages
12952-12965
OpenAlex
W4296965999
Cited by
21
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5
FWCI
3.72
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
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 › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
output selection, large language models, question generation, generational diversity, automated assessment, human evaluation

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