TasksSotADatasetsPapersMethodsSubmitAbout
Papers With Code 2

A community resource for machine learning research: papers, code, benchmarks, and state-of-the-art results.

Explore

Notable BenchmarksAll SotADatasetsPapersMethods

Community

Submit ResultsAbout

Data sourced from the PWC Archive (CC-BY-SA 4.0). Built by the community, for the community.

Papers/Exploring the Benefits of Training Expert Language Models ...

Exploring the Benefits of Training Expert Language Models over Instruction Tuning

Joel Jang, Seungone Kim, Seonghyeon Ye, Doyoung Kim, Lajanugen Logeswaran, Moontae Lee, Kyungjae Lee, Minjoon Seo

2023-02-07Question AnsweringSentence CompletionCoreference ResolutionNatural Language InferenceCommon Sense ReasoningWord Sense Disambiguation
PaperPDFCode(official)Code

Abstract

Recently, Language Models (LMs) instruction-tuned on multiple tasks, also known as multitask-prompted fine-tuning (MT), have shown the capability to generalize to unseen tasks. Previous work has shown that scaling the number of training tasks is the key component in making stronger MT LMs. In this work, we report an unexpected finding that an expert LM fine-tuned on just a single task can outperform an MT LM trained with 300+ different tasks on 11 different unseen datasets and on 13 datasets of the BIG-bench benchmark by a mean accuracy of 3.20% and 1.29%, respectively. This finding casts doubt on the previously held belief that simply scaling the number of tasks makes stronger MT LMs. Leveraging this finding, we further show that this distributed approach of training a separate expert LM per training task instead of a single MT LM for zero-shot inference possesses many benefits including (1) avoiding negative task transfer that often occurs during instruction tuning, (2) being able to continually learn new tasks without having to re-train on previous tasks to avoid catastrophic forgetting, and (3) showing compositional capabilities when merging individual experts together. The code is available at https://github.com/joeljang/ELM.

Results

TaskDatasetMetricValueModel
Question AnsweringCOPAAccuracy79.25RoE-3B
Question AnsweringStoryClozeAccuracy86.33RoE-3B
Common Sense ReasoningWinoGrandeAccuracy61.6RoE-3B
Word Sense DisambiguationWords in ContextAccuracy52.97RoE-3B
Natural Language InferenceANLI testA135.49RoE-3B
Natural Language InferenceANLI testA234.64RoE-3B
Natural Language InferenceANLI testA331.22RoE-3B
Natural Language InferenceRTEAccuracy64.01RoE-3B
Coreference ResolutionWinograd Schema ChallengeAccuracy62.21RoE-3B
Sentence CompletionHellaSwagAccuracy34.6RoE-3B

Related Papers

From Roots to Rewards: Dynamic Tree Reasoning with RL2025-07-17Enter the Mind Palace: Reasoning and Planning for Long-term Active Embodied Question Answering2025-07-17Vision-and-Language Training Helps Deploy Taxonomic Knowledge but Does Not Fundamentally Alter It2025-07-17City-VLM: Towards Multidomain Perception Scene Understanding via Multimodal Incomplete Learning2025-07-17Comparing Apples to Oranges: A Dataset & Analysis of LLM Humour Understanding from Traditional Puns to Topical Jokes2025-07-17Describe Anything Model for Visual Question Answering on Text-rich Images2025-07-16Is This Just Fantasy? Language Model Representations Reflect Human Judgments of Event Plausibility2025-07-16LRCTI: A Large Language Model-Based Framework for Multi-Step Evidence Retrieval and Reasoning in Cyber Threat Intelligence Credibility Verification2025-07-15