Instruction Tuning for Large Language Models: A Survey

Paper · arXiv 2308.10792 · Published August 21, 2023
Training and Fine-Tuning

“One of the major issues with LLMs is the mismatch between the training objective and users’ objective: LLMs are typically trained on minimizing the contextual word prediction error on large corpora; while users want the model to "follow their instructions helpfully and safely" (Radford et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020a; Fedus et al., 2021; Rae et al., 2021; Thoppilan et al., 2022)

To address this mismatch, instruction tuning (IT) is proposed, serving as an effective technique to enhance the capabilities and controllability of large language models. It involves further training LLMs using (INSTRUCTION, OUTPUT) pairs, where INSTRUCTION denotes the human instruction for the model, and OUTPUT denotes the desired output that follows the INSTRUCTION. The benefits of IT are threefold: (1) Finetuning an LLM on the instruction dataset bridges the gap between the next-word prediction objective of LLMs and the users’ objective of instruction following; (2) IT allows for a more controllable and predictable model behavior compared to standard LLMs. The instructions serve to constrain the model’s outputs to align with the desired response characteristics or domain knowledge, providing a channel for humans to intervene with the model’s behaviors; and (3) IT is computationally efficient and can help LLMs rapidly adapt to a specific domain without extensive retraining or architectural changes.

Despite its effectiveness, IT also poses challenges: (1) Crafting high-quality instructions that properly cover the desired target behaviors is non-trivial: existing instruction datasets are usually limited in quantity, diversity, and creativity; (2) there has been an increasing concern that IT only improves on tasks that are heavily supported in the IT training dataset (Gudibande et al., 2023); and (3) there has been an intense criticism that IT only captures surface-level patterns and styles (e.g., the output format) rather than comprehending and learning the task (Kung and Peng, 2023). Improving instruction adherence and handling unanticipated model responses remain open research problems. These challenges highlight the importance of further investigations, analysis, and summarization in this field, to optimize the finetuning process and better understand the behavior of instruction fine-tuned LLMs.”

A diagram of a process flow

Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24

Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.

How do LLM judge biases arise and affect evaluation systems? When and how should systems adaptively retrieve information during reasoning? How does training data composition shape what models learn? Why is accurate medical AI advice often unused in clinical practice? Do models conceal internal reasoning that diverges from verbalized outputs? Does alignment training suppress what models reveal about themselves? How do training data structures enable emergent misalignment in models? Does iterative DPO approximate online reinforcement learning dynamics for safety research? Does prompt engineering fix reasoning problems or only shift systematic biases?