Instruction Fine-Tuning: Does Prompt Loss Matter?

We present a novel study analyzing the effects of various prompt loss token weights (PLW) for supervised instruction fine-tuning (SIFT). While prompt-masking (PLW = 0) is common for SIFT, some fine-tuning APIs support fractional PLWs and suggest that using a small non-zero PLW can help stabilize lea...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors Huerta-Enochian, Mathew, Ko, Seung Yong
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published 24.01.2024
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:We present a novel study analyzing the effects of various prompt loss token weights (PLW) for supervised instruction fine-tuning (SIFT). While prompt-masking (PLW = 0) is common for SIFT, some fine-tuning APIs support fractional PLWs and suggest that using a small non-zero PLW can help stabilize learning when fine-tuning on short-completion data. However, there has never been a study confirming this claim, and OpenAI, a major cloud-based SIFT provider, recently removed this parameter from their fine-tuning API. We found that performance of models fine-tuned on short-completion data had a statistically-significant negative quadratic relationship with PLW. Using small values (0.01 - 0.5) of PLW produced better results on multiple-choice and short-generation benchmarks (outperforming models fine-tuned on long-completion data) while large values (~ 1.0) of PLW produced better results on long-generation benchmarks. We explained this effect and verified its importance through additional experiments. This research serves as a warning to API providers about the importance of providing a PLW parameter for SIFT.
DOI:10.48550/arxiv.2401.13586