BARE: Combining Base and Instruction-Tuned Language Models for Better Synthetic Data Generation

As the demand for high-quality data in model training grows, researchers and developers are increasingly generating synthetic data to tune and train LLMs. A common assumption about synthetic data is that sampling from instruct-tuned models is sufficient; however, these models struggle to produce diverse outputs-a key requirement for generalization. Despite various prompting methods, in this work we show that achieving meaningful diversity from instruct-tuned models remains challenging. In contrast, we find base models without post-training exhibit greater diversity, but are less capable at instruction following and hence of lower quality. Leveraging this insight, we propose Base-Refine (BARE), a synthetic data generation method that combines the diversity of base models with the quality of instruct-tuned models through a two-stage process. With minimal few-shot examples and curation, BARE generates diverse and high-quality datasets, improving downstream task performance. We show that fine-tuning with as few as 1,000 BARE-generated samples can reach performance comparable to the best similarly sized models on LiveCodeBench tasks. Furthermore, fine-tuning with BARE-generated data achieves a 101% improvement over instruct-only data on GSM8K and a 18.4% improvement over SOTA methods on RAFT.

Networks of Networks: Complexity Class Principles Applied to Compound AI Systems Design

As practitioners seek to surpass the current reliability and quality frontier of monolithic models, Compound AI Systems consisting of many language model inference calls are increasingly employed. In this work, we construct systems, which we call Networks of Networks (NoNs) organized around the distinction between generating a proposed answer and verifying its correctness, a fundamental concept in complexity theory that we show empirically extends to Language Models (LMs). We introduce a verifier-based judge NoN with K generators, an instantiation of "best-of-K" or "judge-based" compound AI systems. Through experiments on synthetic tasks such as prime factorization, and core benchmarks such as the MMLU, we demonstrate notable performance gains. For instance, in factoring products of two 3-digit primes, a simple NoN improves accuracy from 3.7\% to 36.6\%. On MMLU, a verifier-based judge construction with only 3 generators boosts accuracy over individual GPT-4-Turbo calls by 2.8\%. Our analysis reveals that these gains are most pronounced in domains where verification is notably easier than generation--a characterization which we believe subsumes many reasoning and procedural knowledge tasks, but doesn't often hold for factual and declarative knowledge-based settings. For mathematical and formal logic reasoning-based subjects of MMLU, we observe a 5-8\% or higher gain, whilst no gain on others such as geography and religion. We provide key takeaways for ML practitioners, including the importance of considering verification complexity, the impact of witness format on verifiability, and a simple test to determine the potential benefit of this NoN approach for a given problem distribution. This work aims to inform future research and practice in the design of compound AI systems.

Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviews

We present an approach for estimating the fraction of text in a large corpus which is likely to be substantially modified or produced by a large language model (LLM). Our maximum likelihood model leverages expert-written and AI-generated reference texts to accurately and efficiently examine real-world LLM-use at the corpus level. We apply this approach to a case study of scientific peer review in AI conferences that took place after the release of ChatGPT: ICLR 2024, NeurIPS 2023, CoRL 2023 and EMNLP 2023. Our results suggest that between 6.5% and 16.9% of text submitted as peer reviews to these conferences could have been substantially modified by LLMs, i.e. beyond spell-checking or minor writing updates. The circumstances in which generated text occurs offer insight into user behavior: the estimated fraction of LLM-generated text is higher in reviews which report lower confidence, were submitted close to the deadline, and from reviewers who are less likely to respond to author rebuttals. We also observe corpus-level trends in generated text which may be too subtle to detect at the individual level, and discuss the implications of such trends on peer review. We call for future interdisciplinary work to examine how LLM use is changing our information and knowledge practices.

Are More LLM Calls All You Need? Towards Scaling Laws of Compound Inference Systems

Many recent state-of-the-art results in language tasks were achieved using compound systems that perform multiple Large Language Model (LLM) calls and aggregate their responses. However, there is little understanding of how the number of LLM calls -- e.g., when asking the LLM to answer each question multiple times and taking a consensus -- affects such a compound system's performance. In this paper, we initiate the study of scaling laws of compound inference systems. We analyze, theoretically and empirically, how the number of LLM calls affects the performance of one-layer Voting Inference Systems -- one of the simplest compound systems, which aggregates LLM responses via majority voting. We find empirically that across multiple language tasks, surprisingly, Voting Inference Systems' performance first increases but then decreases as a function of the number of LLM calls. Our theoretical results suggest that this non-monotonicity is due to the diversity of query difficulties within a task: more LLM calls lead to higher performance on "easy" queries, but lower performance on "hard" queries, and non-monotone behavior emerges when a task contains both types of queries. This insight then allows us to compute, from a small number of samples, the number of LLM calls that maximizes system performance, and define a scaling law of Voting Inference Systems. Experiments show that our scaling law can predict the performance of Voting Inference Systems and find the optimal number of LLM calls to make.

Data Acquisition: A New Frontier in Data-centric AI

As Machine Learning (ML) systems continue to grow, the demand for relevant and comprehensive datasets becomes imperative. There is limited study on the challenges of data acquisition due to ad-hoc processes and lack of consistent methodologies. We first present an investigation of current data marketplaces, revealing lack of platforms offering detailed information about datasets, transparent pricing, standardized data formats. With the objective of inciting participation from the data-centric AI community, we then introduce the DAM challenge, a benchmark to model the interaction between the data providers and acquirers. The benchmark was released as a part of DataPerf. Our evaluation of the submitted strategies underlines the need for effective data acquisition strategies in ML.

How is ChatGPT's behavior changing over time?

GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 are the two most widely used large language model (LLM) services. However, when and how these models are updated over time is opaque. Here, we evaluate the March 2023 and June 2023 versions of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 on several diverse tasks: 1) math problems, 2) sensitive/dangerous questions, 3) opinion surveys, 4) multi-hop knowledge-intensive questions, 5) generating code, 6) US Medical License tests, and 7) visual reasoning. We find that the performance and behavior of both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 can vary greatly over time. For example, GPT-4 (March 2023) was reasonable at identifying prime vs. composite numbers (84% accuracy) but GPT-4 (June 2023) was poor on these same questions (51% accuracy). This is partly explained by a drop in GPT-4's amenity to follow chain-of-thought prompting. Interestingly, GPT-3.5 was much better in June than in March in this task. GPT-4 became less willing to answer sensitive questions and opinion survey questions in June than in March. GPT-4 performed better at multi-hop questions in June than in March, while GPT-3.5's performance dropped on this task. Both GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 had more formatting mistakes in code generation in June than in March. Overall, our findings show that the behavior of the "same" LLM service can change substantially in a relatively short amount of time, highlighting the need for continuous monitoring of LLMs.

FrugalGPT: How to Use Large Language Models While Reducing Cost and Improving Performance

There is a rapidly growing number of large language models (LLMs) that users can query for a fee. We review the cost associated with querying popular LLM APIs, e.g. GPT-4, ChatGPT, J1-Jumbo, and find that these models have heterogeneous pricing structures, with fees that can differ by two orders of magnitude. In particular, using LLMs on large collections of queries and text can be expensive. Motivated by this, we outline and discuss three types of strategies that users can exploit to reduce the inference cost associated with using LLMs: 1) prompt adaptation, 2) LLM approximation, and 3) LLM cascade. As an example, we propose FrugalGPT, a simple yet flexible instantiation of LLM cascade which learns which combinations of LLMs to use for different queries in order to reduce cost and improve accuracy. Our experiments show that FrugalGPT can match the performance of the best individual LLM (e.g. GPT-4) with up to 98% cost reduction or improve the accuracy over GPT-4 by 4% with the same cost. The ideas and findings presented here lay a foundation for using LLMs sustainably and efficiently.

SEAL : Interactive Tool for Systematic Error Analysis and Labeling

With the advent of Transformers, large language models (LLMs) have saturated well-known NLP benchmarks and leaderboards with high aggregate performance. However, many times these models systematically fail on tail data or rare groups not obvious in aggregate evaluation. Identifying such problematic data groups is even more challenging when there are no explicit labels (e.g., ethnicity, gender, etc.) and further compounded for NLP datasets due to the lack of visual features to characterize failure modes (e.g., Asian males, animals indoors, waterbirds on land, etc.). This paper introduces an interactive Systematic Error Analysis and Labeling (\seal) tool that uses a two-step approach to first identify high error slices of data and then, in the second step, introduce methods to give human-understandable semantics to those underperforming slices. We explore a variety of methods for coming up with coherent semantics for the error groups using language models for semantic labeling and a text-to-image model for generating visual features. SEAL toolkit and demo screencast is available at https://huggingface.co/spaces/nazneen/seal.

HAPI: A Large-scale Longitudinal Dataset of Commercial ML API Predictions

Commercial ML APIs offered by providers such as Google, Amazon and Microsoft have dramatically simplified ML adoption in many applications. Numerous companies and academics pay to use ML APIs for tasks such as object detection, OCR and sentiment analysis. Different ML APIs tackling the same task can have very heterogeneous performance. Moreover, the ML models underlying the APIs also evolve over time. As ML APIs rapidly become a valuable marketplace and a widespread way to consume machine learning, it is critical to systematically study and compare different APIs with each other and to characterize how APIs change over time. However, this topic is currently underexplored due to the lack of data. In this paper, we present HAPI (History of APIs), a longitudinal dataset of 1,761,417 instances of commercial ML API applications (involving APIs from Amazon, Google, IBM, Microsoft and other providers) across diverse tasks including image tagging, speech recognition and text mining from 2020 to 2022. Each instance consists of a query input for an API (e.g., an image or text) along with the API's output prediction/annotation and confidence scores. HAPI is the first large-scale dataset of ML API usages and is a unique resource for studying ML-as-a-service (MLaaS). As examples of the types of analyses that HAPI enables, we show that ML APIs' performance change substantially over time--several APIs' accuracies dropped on specific benchmark datasets. Even when the API's aggregate performance stays steady, its error modes can shift across different subtypes of data between 2020 and 2022. Such changes can substantially impact the entire analytics pipelines that use some ML API as a component. We further use HAPI to study commercial APIs' performance disparities across demographic subgroups over time. HAPI can stimulate more research in the growing field of MLaaS.

Estimating and Explaining Model Performance When Both Covariates and Labels Shift

Deployed machine learning (ML) models often encounter new user data that differs from their training data. Therefore, estimating how well a given model might perform on the new data is an important step toward reliable ML applications. This is very challenging, however, as the data distribution can change in flexible ways, and we may not have any labels on the new data, which is often the case in monitoring settings. In this paper, we propose a new distribution shift model, Sparse Joint Shift (SJS), which considers the joint shift of both labels and a few features. This unifies and generalizes several existing shift models including label shift and sparse covariate shift, where only marginal feature or label distribution shifts are considered. We describe mathematical conditions under which SJS is identifiable. We further propose SEES, an algorithmic framework to characterize the distribution shift under SJS and to estimate a model's performance on new data without any labels. We conduct extensive experiments on several real-world datasets with various ML models. Across different datasets and distribution shifts, SEES achieves significant (up to an order of magnitude) shift estimation error improvements over existing approaches.