PreprintCited by 29Topic ModelingDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningNatural Language Processing Techniques

Crosslingual Generalization through Multitask Finetuning

Open access
Muennighoff, Niklas, Wang, Thomas, Sutawika, Lintang, Roberts, Adam, Biderman, Stella, Scao, Teven Le, Bari, M Saiful, Shen, Sheng +11 more·2022·arXiv

Abstract

Multitask prompted finetuning (MTF) has been shown to help large language models generalize to new tasks in a zero-shot setting, but so far explorations of MTF have focused on English data and models. We apply MTF to the pretrained multilingual BLOOM and mT5 model families to produce finetuned variants called BLOOMZ and mT0. We find finetuning large multilingual language models on English tasks with English prompts allows for task generalization to non-English languages that appear only in the pretraining corpus. Finetuning on multilingual tasks with English prompts further improves performance on English and non-English tasks leading to various state-of-the-art zero-shot results. We also investigate finetuning on multilingual tasks with prompts that have been machine-translated from English to match the language of each dataset. We find training on these machine-translated prompts leads to better performance on human-written prompts in the respective languages. Surprisingly, we find models are capable of zero-shot generalization to tasks in languages they have never intentionally seen. We conjecture that the models are learning higher-level capabilities that are both task- and language-agnostic. In addition, we introduce xP3, a composite of supervised datasets in 46 languages with English and machine-translated prompts. Our code, datasets and models are freely available at https://github.com/bigscience-workshop/xmtf.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2211.01786

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Most papers that came out of the BigScience Workshop used this functionality to report distributions of scores across different prompting set-ups.

    “Most papers that came out of the BigScience Workshop used this functionality to report distributions of scores across different prompting set-ups (Sanh et al., 2022; Muennighoff et al., 2022; Yong et al., 2023; BigScience Workshop et al., 2023).”

    From Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Muennighoff et al., 2022

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Muennighoff, N., Wang, T., Sutawika, L., Roberts, A., Biderman, S., Scao, T. L., Bari, M. S., Shen, S., Yong, Z.-X., Schoelkopf, H., Tang, X., Radev, D., Aji, A. F., Almubarak, K., Albanie, S., Alyafeai, Z., Webson, A., Raff, E., & Raffel, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Google (United States) (US)
  • King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (SA)
  • Nanyang Technological University (SG)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Brown University (US)
  • Yale University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4308244210
Cited by
29
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 12
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
  • Grand Équipement National De Calcul Intensif
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
cross-lingual generalization, zero-shot learning, multilingual language models, bloom, mT5

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