CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 5Topic ModelingSpeech and dialogue systemsNatural Language Processing Techniques

A Closer Look at the Limitations of Instruction Tuning

Open access
Ghosh, Sreyan, Evuru, Chandra Kiran Reddy, Kumar, Sonal, S, Ramaneswaran, Aneja, Deepali, Jin, Zeyu, Duraiswami, Ramani, Manocha, Dinesh·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2402.05119arXiv 2402.05119
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Instruction Tuning (IT), the process of training large language models (LLMs) using instruction-response pairs, has emerged as the predominant method for transforming base pre-trained LLMs into open-domain conversational agents. While IT has achieved notable success and widespread adoption, its limitations and shortcomings remain underexplored. In this paper, through rigorous experiments and an in-depth analysis of the changes LLMs undergo through IT, we reveal various limitations of IT. In particular, we show that (1) IT fails to enhance knowledge or skills in LLMs. LoRA fine-tuning is limited to learning response initiation and style tokens, and full-parameter fine-tuning leads to knowledge degradation. (2) Copying response patterns from IT datasets derived from knowledgeable sources leads to a decline in response quality. (3) Full-parameter fine-tuning increases hallucination by inaccurately borrowing tokens from conceptually similar instances in the IT dataset for generating responses. (4) Popular methods to improve IT do not lead to performance improvements over a simple LoRA fine-tuned model. Our findings reveal that responses generated solely from pre-trained knowledge consistently outperform responses by models that learn any form of new knowledge from IT on open-source datasets. We hope the insights and challenges revealed in this paper inspire future work in related directions.

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.2402.05119

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?

  • LoRA achieves comparable performance to full fine-tuning while requiring significantly less time and compute.

    “Previous research demonstrated that LoRA achieves comparable performance to full fine-tuning, while requiring significantly less time and compute (Dettmers et al., 2023; Ghosh et al., 2024).”

    From The Good, the Bad and the Constructive: Automatically Measuring Peer Review's Utility for Authors (2025) · cites this paper as Ghosh et al., 2024

    The Evaluation Datasets section (page unavailable) says LoRA fine-tuning trains fewer parameters, making it faster and more efficient than full-parameter fine-tuning. Finding 4 (page unavailable) reports that LoRA outperformed full fine-tuning on factuality and usefulness in the paper’s instruction-tuning comparison. The source does not quantify time or compute savings, and these results do not establish comparable performance across fine-tuning tasks generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Bai, Y., Jones, A., Ndousse, K., Askell, A., Chen, A., Das- Sarma, N., Drain, D., Fort, S., Ganguli, D., Henighan, T., et al. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with rein- forcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862, 2022. · arXiv
  2. Bubeck, S., Chandrasekaran, V., Eldan, R., Gehrke, J., Horvitz, E., Kamar, E., Lee, P., Lee, Y. T., Li, Y., Lundberg, S., et al. Sparks of artificial general intel- ligence: Early experiments with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712, 2023. · arXiv
  3. Chan, C.-M., Chen, W., Su, Y., Yu, J., Xue, W., Zhang, S., Fu, J., and Liu, Z. Chateval: Towards better llm-based evaluators through multi-agent debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07201, 2023. · arXiv
  4. Gudibande, A., Wallace, E., Snell, C., Geng, X., Liu, H., Abbeel, P., Levine, S., and Song, D. The false promise of imitating proprietary llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15717, 2023. · arXiv
  5. Hu, E. J., Shen, Y., Wallis, P., Allen-Zhu, Z., Li, Y., Wang, S., Wang, L., and Chen, W. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685, 2021. · arXiv
  6. Ivison, H., Wang, Y., Pyatkin, V., Lambert, N., Peters, M., Dasigi, P., Jang, J., Wadden, D., Smith, N. A., Beltagy, I., et al. Camels in a changing climate: Enhancing lm adaptation with tulu 2. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10702, 2023. · arXiv
  7. Jain, N., Chiang, P.-y., Wen, Y., Kirchenbauer, J., Chu, H.-M., Somepalli, G., Bartoldson, B. R., Kailkhura, B., Schwarzschild, A., Saha, A., et al. Neftune: Noisy em- beddings improve instruction finetuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05914, 2023. · arXiv
  8. Jiang, A. Q., Sablayrolles, A., Mensch, A., Bamford, C., Chaplot, D. S., Casas, D. d. l., Bressand, F., Lengyel, G., Lample, G., Saulnier, L., et al. Mistral 7b. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825, 2023. · arXiv
  9. Kung, P.-N. and Peng, N. Do models really learn to follow instructions? an empirical study of instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11383, 2023. · arXiv
  10. Li, Y., Bubeck, S., Eldan, R., Del Giorno, A., Gunasekar, S., and Lee, Y. T. Textbooks are all you need ii: phi- 1.5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05463, 2023b. · arXiv
  11. Lin, B. Y., Ravichander, A., Lu, X., Dziri, N., Sclar, M., Chandu, K., Bhagavatula, C., and Choi, Y. The unlocking spell on base llms: Rethinking alignment via in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.01552, 2023. · arXiv
  12. Liu, Y., Iter, D., Xu, Y., Wang, S., Xu, R., and Zhu, C. G-eval: Nlg evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment, may 2023. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.16634, 6, 2023. · arXiv
  13. Rafailov, R., Sharma, A., Mitchell, E., Ermon, S., Manning, C. D., and Finn, C. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18290, 2023. · arXiv
  14. Reimers, N. and Gurevych, I. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084, 2019. · arXiv
  15. Touvron, H., Martin, L., Stone, K., Albert, P., Almahairi, A., Babaei, Y., Bashlykov, N., Batra, S., Bhargava, P., Bhosale, S., et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine- tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023. · arXiv
  16. Rogers, A., Boyd-Graber, J., and Okazaki, N. (eds.), Pro- ceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 13484-13508, Toronto, Canada, July 2023. Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/ 2023.acl-long.754. URL https://aclanthology. org/2023.acl-long.754. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Wei, J., Bosma, M., Zhao, V., Guu, K., Yu, A. W., Lester, B., Du, N., Dai, A. M., and Le, Q. V. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In International Confer- ence on Learning Representations, 2022. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=gEZrGCozdqR.
  18. Xu, C., Sun, Q., Zheng, K., Geng, X., Zhao, P., Feng, J., Tao, C., and Jiang, D. Wizardlm: Empowering large language models to follow complex instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12244, 2023a. · arXiv
  19. Xu, W., Wang, D., Pan, L., Song, Z., Freitag, M., Wang, W. Y., and Li, L. Instructscore: Towards explainable text generation evaluation with automatic feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14282, 2023b. · arXiv
  20. Zhang, B., Liu, Z., Cherry, C., and Firat, O. When scaling meets LLM finetuning: The effect of data, model and finetuning method. In The Twelfth International Confer- ence on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=5HCnKDeTws.
  21. Zhang, S., Dong, L., Li, X., Zhang, S., Sun, X., Wang, S., Li, J., Hu, R., Zhang, T., Wu, F., et al. Instruction tuning for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10792, 2023a. · arXiv
  22. Zhao, W. X., Zhou, K., Li, J., Tang, T., Wang, X., Hou, Y., Min, Y., Zhang, B., Zhang, J., Dong, Z., et al. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223, 2023. · arXiv
  23. Zheng, C., Zhou, H., Meng, F., Zhou, J., and Huang, M. Large language models are not robust multiple choice selectors. In The Twelfth International Confer- ence on Learning Representations, 2024a. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=shr9PXz7T0.
  24. Zheng, L., Chiang, W.-L., Sheng, Y., Zhuang, S., Wu, Z., Zhuang, Y., Lin, Z., Li, Z., Li, D., Xing, E., Zhang, H., Gonzalez, J. E., and Stoica, I. Judging LLM-as-a-judge with MT-bench and chatbot arena. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2023. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=uccHPGDlao.
  25. Zheng, Y., Zhang, R., Zhang, J., Ye, Y., Luo, Z., and Ma, Y. Llamafactory: Unified efficient fine-tuning of 100+ lan- guage models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13372, 2024b. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.13372. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ghosh, S., Evuru, C. K. R., Kumar, S., S, R., Aneja, D., Jin, Z., Duraiswami, R., & Manocha, D.
Affiliations
  • Adobe Systems (United States) (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2402.05119
arXiv
2402.05119
OpenAlex
W4391709244
Cited by
5
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Office of Naval Research (N00014-231-2086, N00014)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
instruction tuning, large language models, low-rank adaptation, knowledge degradation, hallucinations, chatbots, open-domain question answering

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