CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2Topic ModelingDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningNatural Language Processing Techniques

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Symbol tuning improves in-context learning in language models

Open access
Wei, Jerry, Hou, Le, Lampinen, Andrew, Chen, Xiangning, Huang, Da, Tay, Yi, Chen, Xinyun, Lu, Yifeng, Zhou, Denny, Ma, Tengyu, Le, Quoc V.·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2305.08298arXiv 2305.08298
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We present symbol tuning - finetuning language models on in-context input-label pairs where natural language labels (e.g., "positive/negative sentiment") are replaced with arbitrary symbols (e.g., "foo/bar"). Symbol tuning leverages the intuition that when a model cannot use instructions or natural language labels to figure out a task, it must instead do so by learning the input-label mappings. We experiment with symbol tuning across Flan-PaLM models up to 540B parameters and observe benefits across various settings. First, symbol tuning boosts performance on unseen in-context learning tasks and is much more robust to underspecified prompts, such as those without instructions or without natural language labels. Second, symbol-tuned models are much stronger at algorithmic reasoning tasks, with up to 18.2% better performance on the List Functions benchmark and up to 15.3% better performance on the Simple Turing Concepts benchmark. Finally, symbol-tuned models show large improvements in following flipped-labels presented in-context, meaning that they are more capable of using in-context information to override prior semantic knowledge.

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2305.08298

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • Training VLMs to override existing tokens with action tokens is a form of symbol tuning, which has been shown to work well for VLMs in prior work.

    “It is worth noting that training VLMs to override existing tokens with action tokens is a form of symbol tuning (Wei et al., 2023), which has been shown to work well for VLMs in prior work.”

    From RT-2: Vision-Language-Action Models Transfer Web Knowledge to Robotic Control (2023) · cites this paper as Wei et al., 2023

    Section 2 defines symbol tuning as replacing natural-language labels with semantically unrelated labels, which supports an analogy to remapping tokens. But the paper studies Flan-PaLM language models, not VLMs; it does not establish that overriding existing tokens with action tokens is the same procedure or that it works well for VLMs. The indexed passages provide section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. Ekin Akyürek, Dale Schuurmans, Jacob Andreas, Tengyu Ma, and Denny Zhou. What learning algorithm is in-context learning? Investigations with linear models. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.15661. · arXiv
  2. Neel Alex, Eli Lifland, Lewis Tunstall, Abhishek Thakur, Pegah Maham, C. Jess Riedel, Emmie Hine, Carolyn Ashurst, Paul Sedille, Alexis Carlier, Michael Noetel, and Andreas Stuhlmüller. RAFT: A real-world few-shot text classification benchmark. In Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.14076. · arXiv
  3. Valerio Basile, Cristina Bosco, Elisabetta Fersini, Debora Nozza, Viviana Patti, Francisco Manuel Rangel Pardo, Paolo Rosso, and Manuela Sanguinetti. SemEval-2019 Task 5: Multilingual detection of hate speech against immigrants and women in Twitter. In International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, 2019. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/S19-2007.
  4. Yonatan Bisk, Rowan Zellers, Ronan Le Bras, Jianfeng Gao, and Yejin Choi. PIQA: Reasoning about physical commonsense in natural language. In Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.11641. · arXiv
  5. Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2015. URL https://aclanthology.org/D15-1075/.
  6. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D. Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. In Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165. · arXiv
  7. Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, et al. PaLM: Scaling language modeling with Pathways, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.02311. · arXiv
  8. Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.11416. · arXiv
  9. Alexis Conneau and Douwe Kiela. SentEval: An evaluation toolkit for universal sentence rep- resentations. In Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 2018. URL http: //arxiv.org/abs/1803.05449.
  10. Damai Dai, Yutao Sun, Li Dong, Yaru Hao, Zhifang Sui, and Furu Wei. Why can GPT learn in- context? Language models secretly perform gradient descent as meta-optimizers. In Workshop on Understanding Foundation Models at the International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.10559. · arXiv
  11. Shivam Garg, Dimitris Tsipras, Percy Liang, and Gregory Valiant. What can transformers learn in- context? A case study of simple function classes. In Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.01066. · arXiv
  12. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.03300. · arXiv
  13. Norman P. Jouppi, George Kurian, Sheng Li, Peter Ma, Rahul Nagarajan, Lifeng Nai, Nishant Patil, Suvinay Subramanian, Andy Swing, Brian Towles, Cliff Young, Xiang Zhou, Zongwei Zhou, and David Patterson. TPU v4: An optically reconfigurable supercomputer for machine learning with hardware support for embeddings, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.01433. · arXiv
  14. Sakaguchi Keisuke, Le Bras Ronan, Bhagavatula Chandra, and Choi Yejin. WinoGrande: An adversarial winograd schema challenge at scale. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.10641. · arXiv
  15. Hector Levesque, Ernest Davis, and Leora Morgenstern. The winograd schema challenge. In International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 2012. URL https://cdn.aaai.org/ocs/4492/4492-21843-1-PB.pdf.
  16. Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag, Theo Gutman-Solo, Yuhuai Wu, Behnam Neyshabur, Guy Gur-Ari, and Vedant Misra. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models. In Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2206.14858.
  17. Quentin Lhoest, Albert Villanova del Moral, Yacine Jernite, Abhishek Thakur, Patrick von Platen, Suraj Patil, Julien Chaumond, Mariama Drame, Julien Plu, Lewis Tunstall, Joe Davison, Mario Šaško, Gunjan Chhablani, Bhavitvya Malik, Simon Brandeis, Teven Le Scao, Victor Sanh, Canwen Xu, Nicolas Patry, Angelina McMillan-Major, Philipp Schmid, Sylvain Gugger, Clément Delangue, Théo Matussière, Lysandre Debut, Stas Bekman, Pierric Cistac, Thibault Goehringer, Victor Mustar, François Lagunas, Alexander Rush, and Thomas Wolf. Datasets: A community library for natural language processing. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.02846. · arXiv
  18. Xin Li and Dan Roth. Learning question classifiers. In Conference on Computational Linguistics, 2002. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C02-1150.
  19. Aman Madaan and Amir Yazdanbakhsh. Text and patterns: For effective chain of thought, it takes two to tango, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.07686. · arXiv
  20. Sewon Min, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. MetaICL: Learning to learn in context. In Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2022a. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.15943. · arXiv
  21. Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2022b. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.12837. · arXiv
  22. Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Cross-task general- ization via natural language crowdsourcing instructions. In Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.08773. · arXiv
  23. Saif Mohammad, Svetlana Kiritchenko, Parinaz Sobhani, Xiaodan Zhu, and Colin Cherry. SemEval- 2016 Task 6: Detecting stance in tweets. In International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, 2016. URL https://aclanthology.org/S16-1003/.
  24. Allen Newell. Physical symbol systems. Cognitive Science, 1980. URL https:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15516709cog0402_2. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon. Computer science as empirical inquiry: Symbols and search. In Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 1976. URL https://dl.acm. org/doi/10.1145/360018.360022. · DOI
  26. OpenAI. GPT-4 technical report, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774. · arXiv
  27. Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2203. 02155.
  28. Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. Seeing stars: Exploiting class relationships for sentiment categorization with respect to rating scales. In Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2005. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0506075. · arXiv
  29. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to- text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2020. URL http://jmlr.org/ papers/v21/20-074.html.
  30. Aniruddh Raghu, Maithra Raghu, Samy Bengio, and Oriol Vinyals. Rapid learning or feature reuse? towards understanding the effectiveness of MAML. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.09157. · arXiv
  31. Janarthanan Rajendran, Alexander Irpan, and Eric Jang. Meta-learning requires meta-augmentation. In Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2007.05549. · arXiv
  32. Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2016. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.052504.
  33. Laria Reynolds and Kyle McDonell. Prompt programming for large language models: Beyond the few-shot paradigm. In Extended Abstracts of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.07350. · arXiv
  34. Sara Rosenthal, Noura Farra, and Preslav Nakov. SemEval-2017 Task 4: Sentiment analysis in twitter. In International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, 2017. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1912.00741.
  35. Joshua S. Rule, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Steven T. Piantadosi. The child as hacker. Trends in Cog- nitive Sciences, 2020. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ abs/pii/S1364661320301741.
  36. Joshua Stewart Rule. The child as hacker: building more human-like models of learning. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2020. URL https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/ 1721.1/129232.
  37. Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H. Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, 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 Man- ica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Trishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, Andrea Santilli, Thibault Fevry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Tali Bers, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M. Rush. Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.08207. · arXiv
  38. Adam Santoro, Andrew K. Lampinen, Kory W. Mathewson, Timothy P. Lillicrap, and David Raposo. Symbolic behaviour in artificial intelligence, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2102. 03406.
  39. Noam Shazeer and Mitchell Stern. Adafactor: Adaptive learning rates with sublinear memory cost. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2018. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1804.04235.
  40. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2013. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D13-1170.
  41. Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, et al. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.04615. · arXiv
  42. Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Scales, Nathanael Schärli, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yi Tay, Hyung Won Chung, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Quoc V. Le, Ed H. Chi, Denny Zhou, and Jason Wei. Challenging BIG- Bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2210.09261. · arXiv
  43. Jan Arne Telle, José Hernández-Orallo, and Cèsar Ferri. The teaching size: computable teachers and learners for universal languages. Machine Learning, 2019. URL https://link.springer. com/article/10.1007/s10994-019-05821-2. · DOI
  44. Cynthia Van Hee, Els Lefever, and Véronique Hoste. SemEval-2018 Task 3: Irony detection in english tweets. In International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, 2018. URL https: //aclanthology.org/S18-1005/.
  45. Johannes von Oswald, Eyvind Niklasson, Ettore Randazzo, João Sacramento, Alexander Mordvintsev, Andrey Zhmoginov, and Max Vladymyrov. Transformers learn in-context by gradient descent, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.07677. · arXiv
  46. Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R. Bowman. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In BlackboxNLP Workshop at the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2018. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.07461. · arXiv
  47. Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. SuperGLUE: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. In Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.00537. · arXiv
  48. Boshi Wang, Sewon Min, Xiang Deng, Jiaming Shen, You Wu, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Huan Sun. Towards understanding chain-of-thought prompting: An empirical study of what matters, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.10001. · arXiv
  49. Albert Webson and Ellie Pavlick. Do prompt-based models really understand the meaning of their prompts? In Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.01247. · arXiv
  50. Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V. Le. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022a. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2109.01652. · arXiv
  51. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022b. URL https:// arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903. · arXiv
  52. Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Dustin Tran, Albert Webson, Yifeng Lu, Xinyun Chen, Hanxiao Liu, Da Huang, Denny Zhou, and Tengyu Ma. Larger language models do in-context learning differently, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.03846. · arXiv
  53. Qinyuan Ye, Bill Yuchen Lin, and Xiang Ren. CrossFit: A few-shot learning challenge for cross-task generalization in NLP. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.08835. · arXiv
  54. Mingzhang Yin, George Tucker, Mingyuan Zhou, Sergey Levine, and Chelsea Finn. Meta-learning without memorization. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.03820. · arXiv
  55. Marcos Zampieri, Shervin Malmasi, Preslav Nakov, Sara Rosenthal, Noura Farra, and Ritesh Kumar. SemEval-2019 Task 6: Identifying and categorizing offensive language in social media (offenseval). In International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2104.04871. Answer: none Question: Read the following tweet and determine its stance on atheism.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wei, J., Hou, L., Lampinen, A., Chen, X., Huang, D., Tay, Y., Chen, X., Lu, Y., Zhou, D., Ma, T., & Le, Q. V.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2305.08298
arXiv
2305.08298
OpenAlex
W4376653731
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
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
in-context learning, fine-tuning, language models, algorithmic reasoning, instruction following, large language models

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