PreprintCited by 11Topic ModelingDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningNatural Language Processing Techniques

Camels in a Changing Climate: Enhancing LM Adaptation with Tulu 2

Open access
Ivison, Hamish, Wang, Yizhong, Pyatkin, Valentina, Lambert, Nathan, Peters, Matthew, Dasigi, Pradeep, Jang, Joel, Wadden, David +3 more·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Since the release of TÜLU [Wang et al., 2023b], open resources for instruction tuning have developed quickly, from better base models to new finetuning techniques. We test and incorporate a number of these advances into TÜLU, resulting in TÜLU 2, a suite of improved TÜLU models for advancing the understanding and best practices of adapting pretrained language models to downstream tasks and user preferences. Concretely, we release: (1) TÜLU-V2-mix, an improved collection of high-quality instruction datasets; (2) TÜLU 2, LLAMA-2 models finetuned on the V2 mixture; (3) TÜLU 2+DPO, TÜLU 2 models trained with direct preference optimization (DPO), including the largest DPO-trained model to date (TÜLU 2+DPO 70B); (4) CODE TÜLU 2, CODE LLAMA models finetuned on our V2 mix that outperform CODE LLAMA and its instruction-tuned variant, CODE LLAMA-Instruct. Our evaluation from multiple perspectives shows that the TÜLU 2 suite achieves state-of-the-art performance among open models and matches or exceeds the performance of GPT-3.5-turbo-0301 on several benchmarks. We release all the checkpoints, data, training and evaluation code to facilitate future open efforts on adapting large language models.

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.2311.10702

Cites

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?

  • GPT-4 used as an annotator to represent human preference prefers longer sentences over shorter ones.

    “Specifically, when using a GPT-4 to represent human preference, it will prefer to choose a long sentence rather than a short sentence (Dubois et al., 2024a;Ivison et al., 2023;Gu et al., 2024;Hu et al., 2024b;Koo et al., 2023;Wang et al., 2023a;Wu and Aji, 2023;Dubois et al., 2024b;Chen et al., 2023;Hu et al., 2024c).”

    From Explaining Length Bias in LLM-Based Preference Evaluations (2025) · cites this paper as Ivison et al., 2023

    The Evaluation Suite section says the paper uses GPT-4 to compare model responses in AlpacaEval. Table 4 and the ‘DPO training increases model verbosity’ section report longer DPO-model outputs alongside higher AlpacaEval win rates, but they do not establish that GPT-4 prefers a longer response over a shorter one because of its length. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Both Llama-3 and Tulu-2 utilized some variant of DPO.

    “Interestingly, both Llama-3 and Tulu-2 [69] utilized some variant of DPO [149] citing significantly lower computational cost while maintaining similar performance.”
  • DPO tends to make model responses longer.

    “Previous work (Gu et al., 2024;Ivison et al., 2023) has shown that DPO (Rafailov et al., 2023) tends to make model responses longer”

    From Explaining Length Bias in LLM-Based Preference Evaluations (2025) · cites this paper as Ivison et al., 2023

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. R. Anil, A. M. Dai, O. Firat, M. Johnson, D. Lepikhin, A. Passos, S. Shakeri, E. Taropa, P. Bailey, Z. Chen, et al. Palm 2 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10403, 2023. · arXiv
  2. Y. Bai, A. Jones, K. Ndousse, A. Askell, A. Chen, N. DasSarma, D. Drain, S. Fort, D. Ganguli, T. Henighan, et al. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862, 2022. · arXiv
  3. I. Cachola, K. Lo, A. Cohan, and D. Weld. TLDR: Extreme summarization of scientific documents. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 4766-4777, On- line, Nov. 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp. 428. URL https://aclanthology.org/2020.findings-emnlp.428. · DOI · Paper page
  4. M. Chen, J. Tworek, H. Jun, Q. Yuan, H. P. d. O. Pinto, J. Kaplan, H. Edwards, Y. Burda, N. Joseph, G. Brockman, et al. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374, 2021. · arXiv
  5. H. W. Chung, L. Hou, S. Longpre, B. Zoph, Y. Tay, W. Fedus, E. Li, X. Wang, M. Dehghani, S. Brahma, et al. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416, 2022. · arXiv
  6. G. Cui, L. Yuan, N. Ding, G. Yao, W. Zhu, Y. Ni, G. Xie, Z. Liu, and M. Sun. Ultrafeedback: Boosting language models with high-quality feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01377, 2023. · arXiv
  7. P. Dasigi, K. Lo, I. Beltagy, A. Cohan, N. A. Smith, and M. Gardner. A dataset of information-seeking questions and answers anchored in research papers. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech- nologies, pages 4599-4610, Online, June 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10. 18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.365. URL https://aclanthology.org/2021.naacl-main.365. Databricks. Free dolly: Introducing the world's first truly open instruction-tuned llm. Blog post, 2023. URL https://www.databricks.com/blog/2023/04/12/ dolly-first-open-commercially-viable-instruction-tuned-llm. · DOI · Paper page
  8. T. Dettmers, A. Pagnoni, A. Holtzman, and L. Zettlemoyer. Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14314, 2023. · arXiv
  9. Y. Dubois, X. Li, R. Taori, T. Zhang, I. Gulrajani, J. Ba, C. Guestrin, P. Liang, and T. B. Hashimoto. Alpacafarm: A simulation framework for methods that learn from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14387, 2023. · arXiv
  10. C. Gulcehre, T. L. Paine, S. Srinivasan, K. Konyushkova, L. Weerts, A. Sharma, A. Siddhant, A. Ahern, M. Wang, C. Gu, et al. Reinforced self-training (rest) for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08998, 2023. · arXiv
  11. T. Hartvigsen, S. Gabriel, H. Palangi, M. Sap, D. Ray, and E. Kamar. TOXIGEN: Controlling Language Models to Generate Implied and Adversarial Toxicity. In ACL, 2022. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2203.09509.
  12. A. Q. Jiang, A. Sablayrolles, A. Mensch, C. Bamford, D. S. Chaplot, D. d. l. Casas, F. Bressand, G. Lengyel, G. Lample, L. Saulnier, et al. Mistral 7b. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825, 2023. · arXiv
  13. A. Köpf, Y. Kilcher, D. von Rütte, S. Anagnostidis, Z.-R. Tam, K. Stevens, A. Barhoum, N. M. Duc, O. Stanley, R. Nagyfi, et al. Openassistant conversations-democratizing large language model alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07327, 2023. · arXiv
  14. E. Lehman, J. DeYoung, R. Barzilay, and B. C. Wallace. Inferring which medical treatments work from reports of clinical trials. 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), pages 3705-3717, Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/N19-1371. URL https://aclanthology.org/ N19-1371. · DOI
  15. B. Lester, R. Al-Rfou, and N. Constant. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tun- ing. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pro- cessing, pages 3045-3059, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, Nov. 2021. Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.243. URL https: //aclanthology.org/2021.emnlp-main.243. · DOI · Paper page
  16. S. Lin, J. Hilton, and O. Evans. Truthfulqa: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3214-3252, 2022.
  17. Y. Luan, L. He, M. Ostendorf, and H. Hajishirzi. Multi-task identification of entities, relations, and coreference for scientific knowledge graph construction. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3219-3232, Brussels, Belgium, Oct.-Nov. 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/D18-1360. URL https://aclanthology.org/D18-1360. · DOI
  18. L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, D. Almeida, C. L. Wainwright, P. Mishkin, C. Zhang, S. Agarwal, K. Slama, A. Ray, et al. Training Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022.
  19. B. Peng, C. Li, P. He, M. Galley, and J. Gao. Instruction tuning with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03277, 2023. · arXiv
  20. R. Rafailov, A. Sharma, E. Mitchell, S. Ermon, C. D. Manning, and C. Finn. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18290, 2023. · arXiv
  21. B. Roziere, J. Gehring, F. Gloeckle, S. Sootla, I. Gat, X. E. Tan, Y. Adi, J. Liu, T. Remez, J. Rapin, et al. Code llama: Open foundation models for code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12950, 2023. · arXiv
  22. P. Singhal, T. Goyal, J. Xu, and G. Durrett. A long way to go: Investigating length correlations in rlhf. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03716, 2023. · arXiv
  23. C. Snell, I. Kostrikov, Y. Su, M. Yang, and S. Levine. Offline rl for natural language generation with implicit language q learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.11871, 2022. · arXiv
  24. M. Suzgun, N. Scales, N. Schärli, S. Gehrmann, Y. Tay, H. W. Chung, A. Chowdhery, Q. V. Le, E. H. Chi, D. Zhou, et al. Challenging big-bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09261, 2022. · arXiv
  25. H. Touvron, T. Lavril, G. Izacard, X. Martinet, M.-A. Lachaux, T. Lacroix, B. Rozière, N. Goyal, E. Hambro, F. Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023a. · arXiv
  26. H. Touvron, L. Martin, K. Stone, P. Albert, A. Almahairi, Y. Babaei, N. Bashlykov, S. Batra, P. Bhargava, S. Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023b. · arXiv
  27. L. Tunstall, E. Beeching, N. Lambert, N. Rajani, K. Rasul, Y. Belkada, S. Huang, L. von Werra, C. Fourrier, N. Habib, et al. Zephyr: Direct distillation of lm alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16944, 2023. · arXiv
  28. D. Wadden, S. Lin, K. Lo, L. L. Wang, M. van Zuylen, A. Cohan, and H. Hajishirzi. Fact or fiction: Verifying scientific claims. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7534-7550, Online, Nov. 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.609. URL https://aclanthology.org/2020.emnlp-main.609. · DOI · Paper page
  29. G. Wang, S. Cheng, X. Zhan, X. Li, S. Song, and Y. Liu. Openchat: Advancing open-source language models with mixed-quality data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11235, 2023a. · arXiv
  30. Y. Wang, H. Ivison, P. Dasigi, J. Hessel, T. Khot, K. R. Chandu, D. Wadden, K. MacMillan, N. A. Smith, I. Beltagy, et al. How far can camels go? exploring the state of instruction tuning on open resources. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04751, 2023b. · arXiv
  31. J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, E. Chi, Q. Le, and D. Zhou. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903, 2022. · arXiv
  32. C. Xu, Q. Sun, K. Zheng, X. Geng, P. Zhao, J. Feng, C. Tao, and D. Jiang. Wizardlm: Empowering large language models to follow complex instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12244, 2023. · arXiv
  33. L. Zheng, W.-L. Chiang, Y. Sheng, S. Zhuang, Z. Wu, Y. Zhuang, Z. Lin, Z. Li, D. Li, E. P. Xing, H. Zhang, J. E. Gonzalez, and I. Stoica. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. In NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2023.
  34. C. Zhou, P. Liu, P. Xu, S. Iyer, J. Sun, Y. Mao, X. Ma, A. Efrat, P. Yu, L. Yu, et al. Lima: Less is more for alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11206, 2023. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ivison, H., Wang, Y., Pyatkin, V., Lambert, N., Peters, M., Dasigi, P., Jang, J., Wadden, D., Smith, N. A., Beltagy, I., & Hajishirzi, H.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4388890574
Cited by
8
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
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
instruction tuning, large language model adaptation, direct preference optimization, DPO, instruction dataset, Llama 2, CodeLlama, open-source language models, user preference alignment

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