CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 135Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningTopic ModelingNatural Language Processing Techniques

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 18 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

An Empirical Study of Catastrophic Forgetting in Large Language Models During Continual Fine-tuning

Open access
Luo, Yun, Yang, Zhen, Meng, Fandong, Li, Yafu, Zhou, Jie, Zhang, Yue·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2308.08747arXiv 2308.08747
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Catastrophic forgetting (CF) is a phenomenon that occurs in machine learning when a model forgets previously learned information while acquiring new knowledge for achieving a satisfactory performance in downstream tasks. As large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance, it is intriguing to investigate whether CF exists during the continual instruction tuning of LLMs. This study empirically evaluates the forgetting phenomenon in LLMs' knowledge during continual instruction tuning from the perspectives of domain knowledge, reasoning, and reading comprehension. The experiments reveal that catastrophic forgetting is generally observed in LLMs ranging from 1b to 7b parameters. Surprisingly, as the model scale increases, the severity of forgetting intensifies in such a model sale range which may result from the much significant initial performance in the larger LLM. Comparing the decoder-only model BLOOMZ with the encoder-decoder model mT0, BLOOMZ exhibits less forgetting and retains more knowledge. Interestingly, we also observe that LLMs can mitigate language biases, such as gender bias, during continual fine-tuning. Furthermore, our findings indicate that general instruction tuning can help alleviate the forgetting phenomenon in LLMs during subsequent fine-tuning.

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.2308.08747

Cites

18 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 The framework in our empirical study for the continual instruction tuning. The initial model M 0 is continually trained with different instruction tasks and evaluated from the perspective of general knowledge tasks including domain knowledge, reasoning, reading comprehension, and the problem of bias.
Figure 1 The framework in our empirical study for the continual instruction tuning. The initial model M 0 is continually trained with different instruction tasks and evaluated from the perspective of general knowledge tasks including domain knowledge, reasoning, reading comprehension, and the problem of bias.CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 2
CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 3 The evaluation of detailed performance in BLOOMZ-1.1b and BLOOMZ-7.1b during continual instruction tuning. The first row refers to the model BLOOMZ-1.1b and the second refers to BLOOMZ-7.1b. The first to third columns are the FG values of domain knowledge (MMLU), reasoning and reading comprehension, respectively.
Figure 3 The evaluation of detailed performance in BLOOMZ-1.1b and BLOOMZ-7.1b during continual instruction tuning. The first row refers to the model BLOOMZ-1.1b and the second refers to BLOOMZ-7.1b. The first to third columns are the FG values of domain knowledge (MMLU), reasoning and reading comprehension, respectively.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 4 The detailed results of knowledge evolution between BLOOMZ and mT0 in the comparable model scale. The first row refers to the model BLOOMZ-3b and the second refers to mT0-3,7b. The first to third columns are the FG values of domain knowledge (MMLU), reasoning and reading comprehension, respectively.
Figure 4 The detailed results of knowledge evolution between BLOOMZ and mT0 in the comparable model scale. The first row refers to the model BLOOMZ-3b and the second refers to mT0-3,7b. The first to third columns are the FG values of domain knowledge (MMLU), reasoning and reading comprehension, respectively.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 5 The evaluation of detailed performance in LLAMA-7b and ALPACA-7b during continual instruction tuning. The first row refers to the model LLAMA-7b and the second refers to ALPACA-7b. The first to third columns are the FG values of domain knowledge (MMLU), reasoning and reading comprehension, respectively.
Figure 5 The evaluation of detailed performance in LLAMA-7b and ALPACA-7b during continual instruction tuning. The first row refers to the model LLAMA-7b and the second refers to ALPACA-7b. The first to third columns are the FG values of domain knowledge (MMLU), reasoning and reading comprehension, respectively.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 6 The performance of general knowledge of the BLOOMZ-7.1b and LLAMA-7b model trained on the instruction data and the mixed data. The dashed lines refers to the performance of BLOOMZ-7.1b and LLAMA-7B and the solid ones refer to those of mixedinstruction trained models.
Figure 6 The performance of general knowledge of the BLOOMZ-7.1b and LLAMA-7b model trained on the instruction data and the mixed data. The dashed lines refers to the performance of BLOOMZ-7.1b and LLAMA-7B and the solid ones refer to those of mixedinstruction trained models.CC-BY · From the PDF

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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Aida Amini, Saadia Gabriel, Shanchuan Lin, Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Yejin Choi, and Han- naneh Hajishirzi. Mathqa: Towards interpretable math word problem solving with operation-based formalisms. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pp. 2357-2367, 2019.
  2. Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, et al. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712, 2023. · arXiv
  3. Pietro Buzzega, Matteo Boschini, Angelo Porrello, Davide Abati, and Simone Calderara. Dark experience for general continual learning: a strong, simple baseline. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:15920-15930, 2020.
  4. Oana-Maria Camburu, Tim Rocktäschel, Thomas Lukasiewicz, and Phil Blunsom. e-snli: Natural language inference with natural language explanations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 2018.
  5. Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, Ming-Wei Chang, Tom Kwiatkowski, Michael Collins, and Kristina Toutanova. Boolq: Exploring the surprising difficulty of natural yes/no questions. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pp. 2924-2936, 2019.
  6. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300, 2020. · arXiv
  7. Zixuan Ke and Bing Liu. Continual learning of natural language processing tasks: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.12701, 2022. · arXiv
  8. Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014. · arXiv
  9. David Lopez-Paz and Marc'Aurelio Ranzato. Gradient episodic memory for continual learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017.
  10. Yun Luo, Xiaotian Lin, Zhen Yang, Fandong Meng, Jie Zhou, and Yue Zhang. Mitigating catastrophic forgetting in task-incremental continual learning with adaptive classification criterion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12270, 2023a. · arXiv
  11. Yun Luo, Zhen Yang, Xuefeng Bai, Fandong Meng, Jie Zhou, and Yue Zhang. Investigat- ing forgetting in pre-trained representations through continual learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.05968, 2023b. · arXiv
  12. Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744, 2022.
  13. Matthew Riemer, Ignacio Cases, Robert Ajemian, Miao Liu, Irina Rish, Yuhai Tu, and Gerald Tesauro. Learning to learn without forgetting by maximizing transfer and minimizing in- terference. In International Conference on Learning Representations. International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR, 2019.
  14. Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, et al. Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08207, 2021. · arXiv
  15. Nisan Stiennon, Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Daniel Ziegler, Ryan Lowe, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, and Paul F Christiano. Learning to summarize with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:3008-3021, 2020.
  16. Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023. · arXiv
  17. 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. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652, 2021. · arXiv
  18. Tongtong Wu, Massimo Caccia, Zhuang Li, Yuan-Fang Li, Guilin Qi, and Gholamreza Haffari. Pretrained language model in continual learning: A comparative study. In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25- 29, 2022. OpenReview.net, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=figzpGMrdD.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 135

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Luo, Y., Yang, Z., Meng, F., Li, Y., Zhou, J., & Zhang, Y.
Affiliations
  • Westlake University (CN)
  • Tencent (China) (CN)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Volume
33
Pages
3776-3786
ISSN
2998-4173 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2308.08747
arXiv
2308.08747
OpenAlex
W4414037010
Cited by
135
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 57 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 1
FWCI
45.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Audio Speech and Language Processing (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
catastrophic forgetting, large language models, continual fine-tuning, knowledge retention, model scale, gender bias, reading comprehension, reasoning

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