Arrow Research search

Author name cluster

Shayne Longpre

Possible papers associated with this exact author name in Arrow. This page groups case-insensitive exact name matches and is not a full identity disambiguation profile.

22 papers
2 author rows

Possible papers

22

TMLR Journal 2026 Journal Article

Open Technical Problems in Open-Weight AI Model Risk Management

  • Stephen Casper
  • Kyle O'Brien
  • Shayne Longpre
  • Elizabeth Seger
  • Kevin Klyman
  • Rishi Bommasani
  • Aniruddha Nrusimha
  • Ilia Shumailov

Frontier AI models with openly available weights are steadily becoming more powerful and widely adopted. However, compared to proprietary models, open-weight models pose different opportunities and challenges for effective risk management. For example, they allow for more open research and testing. However, managing their risks is also challenging because they can be modified arbitrarily, used without oversight, and spread irreversibly. Currently, there is limited research on safety tooling specific to open-weight models. Addressing these gaps will be key to both realizing their benefits and mitigating their harms. In this paper, we present 16 open technical challenges for open-weight model safety involving training data, training algorithms, evaluations, deployment, and ecosystem monitoring. We conclude by discussing the nascent state of the field, emphasizing that openness about research, methods, and evaluations -- not just weights -- will be key to building a rigorous science of open-weight model risk management.

ICLR Conference 2025 Conference Paper

Bridging the Data Provenance Gap Across Text, Speech, and Video

  • Shayne Longpre
  • Nikhil Singh 0003
  • Manuel Cherep
  • Kushagra Tiwary
  • Joanna Materzynska
  • William Brannon
  • Robert Mahari
  • Naana Obeng-Marnu

Progress in AI is driven largely by the scale and quality of training data. Despite this, there is a deficit of empirical analysis examining the attributes of well-established datasets beyond text. In this work we conduct the largest and first-of-its-kind longitudinal audit across modalities --- popular text, speech, and video datasets --- from their detailed sourcing trends and use restrictions to their geographical and linguistic representation. Our manual analysis covers nearly 4000 public datasets between 1990-2024, spanning 608 languages, 798 sources, 659 organizations, and 67 countries. We find that multimodal machine learning applications have overwhelmingly turned to web-crawled, synthetic, and social media platforms, such as YouTube, for their training sets, eclipsing all other sources since 2019. Secondly, tracing the chain of dataset derivations we find that while less than 33% of datasets are restrictively licensed, over 80% of the source content in widely-used text, speech, and video datasets, carry non-commercial restrictions. Finally, counter to the rising number of languages and geographies represented in public AI training datasets, our audit demonstrates measures of relative geographical and multilingual representation have failed to significantly improve their coverage since 2013. We believe the breadth of our audit enables us to empirically examine trends in data sourcing, restrictions, and Western-centricity at an ecosystem-level, and that visibility into these questions are essential to progress in responsible AI. As a contribution to ongoing improvements in dataset transparency and responsible use, we release our entire multimodal audit, allowing practitioners to trace data provenance across text, speech, and video.

NeurIPS Conference 2025 Conference Paper

Establishing Best Practices in Building Rigorous Agentic Benchmarks

  • Yuxuan Zhu
  • Tengjun Jin
  • Yada Pruksachatkun
  • Andy Zhang
  • Shu Liu
  • Sasha Cui
  • Sayash Kapoor
  • Shayne Longpre

Benchmarks are essential for quantitatively tracking progress in AI. As AI agents become increasingly capable, researchers and practitioners have introduced agentic benchmarks to evaluate agents on complex, real-world tasks. These benchmarks typically measure agent capabilities by evaluating task outcomes via specific reward designs. However, we show that many agentic benchmarks have issues in task setup or reward design. For example, SWE-bench-Verified uses insufficient test cases, while $\tau$-bench counts empty responses as successes. Such issues can lead to under- or overestimation of agents’ performance by up to 100% in relative terms. To make agentic evaluation rigorous, we introduce the Agentic Benchmark Checklist (ABC), a set of guidelines that we synthesized from our benchmark-building experience, a survey of best practices, and previously reported issues. When applied to CVE-Bench, a benchmark with a particularly complex evaluation design, ABC reduces performance overestimation by 33%.

NeurIPS Conference 2025 Conference Paper

FlexOLMo: Open Language Models for Flexible Data Use

  • Weijia Shi
  • Akshita Bhagia
  • Kevin Farhat
  • Niklas Muennighoff
  • Jacob Morrison
  • Evan Walsh
  • Dustin Schwenk
  • Shayne Longpre

We introduce FlexOLMo, a new class of language models (LMs) that supports (1) distributed training without data sharing, where different model parameters are independently trained on private datasets, and (2) data-flexible inference, where these parameters along with their associated data can be easily included or excluded from model inferences with no further training. FlexOLMo employs a mixture-of-experts (MoE) architecture where each expert is trained independently on private datasets and later integrated through a new nonparametric routing without any joint training across datasets. FlexOLMo is trained on FLEXMIX, a corpus we curate comprising seven restricted sets, either real or realistic approximations, alongside publicly available datasets. We evaluate models with up to 37 billion parameters (20 billion active) on 31 diverse downstream tasks. We show that a general expert trained on public data can be effectively combined with independently trained experts from other data owners significantly benefiting from these restricted sets (an average 41% relative improvement) while allowing flexible opt-out at inference time (e. g. , for users without appropriate licenses or permissions). Our approach also outperforms prior model merging methods by 10. 1% on average and surpasses the standard MoE trained without data restrictions using the same training FLOPs. Altogether, FlexOLMo enables training on restricted data while keeping data local and supports fine-grained control of data access at inference.

TMLR Journal 2025 Journal Article

The 2023 Foundation Model Transparency Index

  • Rishi Bommasani
  • Kevin Klyman
  • Shayne Longpre
  • Sayash Kapoor
  • Nestor Maslej
  • Betty Xiong
  • Daniel Zhang
  • Percy Liang

Foundation models have rapidly permeated society, catalyzing a wave of generative AI applications spanning enterprise and consumer-facing contexts. While the societal impact of foundation models is growing, transparency is on the decline, mirroring the opacity that has plagued past digital technologies (e.g. social media). Reversing this trend is essential: transparency is a vital precondition for public accountability, scientific innovation, and effective governance. To assess the transparency of the foundation model ecosystem and help improve transparency over time, we introduce the Foundation Model Transparency Index. The Foundation Model Transparency Index specifies 100 fine-grained indicators that comprehensively codify transparency for foundation models, spanning the upstream resources used to build a foundation model (e.g data, labor, compute), details about the model itself (e.g. size, capabilities, risks), and the downstream use (e.g. distribution channels, usage policies, affected geographies). We score 10 major foundation model developers (e.g. OpenAI, Google, Meta) against the 100 indicators to assess their transparency. To facilitate and standardize assessment, we score developers in relation to their practices for their flagship foundation model (e.g. GPT-4 for OpenAI, PaLM 2 for Google, Llama 2 for Meta). We present 10 top-level findings about the foundation model ecosystem: for example, no developer currently discloses significant information about the downstream impact of its flagship model, such as the number of users, affected market sectors, or how users can seek redress for harm. Overall, the Foundation Model Transparency Index establishes the level of transparency today to drive progress on foundation model governance via industry standards and regulatory intervention.

TMLR Journal 2025 Journal Article

The 2024 Foundation Model Transparency Index

  • Rishi Bommasani
  • Kevin Klyman
  • Sayash Kapoor
  • Shayne Longpre
  • Betty Xiong
  • Nestor Maslej
  • Percy Liang

Foundation models are increasingly consequential yet extremely opaque. To characterize the status quo, the Foundation Model Transparency Index was launched in October 2023 to measure the transparency of leading foundation model developers. The October 2023 Index (v1.0) assessed 10 major foundation model developers (e.g. OpenAI, Google) on 100 transparency indicators (e.g. does the developer disclose the wages it pays for data labor?). At the time, developers publicly disclosed very limited information with the average score being 37 out of 100. To understand how the status quo has changed, we conduct a follow-up study (v1.1) after 6 months: we score 14 developers against the same 100 indicators. While in v1.0 we searched for publicly available information, in v1.1 developers submit reports on the 100 transparency indicators, potentially including information that was not previously public. We find that developers now score 58 out of 100 on average, a 21 point improvement over v1.0. Much of this increase is driven by developers disclosing information during the v1.1 process: on average, developers disclosed information related to 16.6 indicators that was not previously public. We observe regions of sustained (i.e. across v1.0 and v1.1) and systemic (i.e. across most or all developers) opacity such as on copyright status, data access, data labor, and downstream impact. We publish transparency reports for each developer that consolidate information disclosures: these reports are based on the information disclosed to us via developers. Our findings demonstrate that transparency can be improved in this nascent ecosystem, the Foundation Model Transparency Index likely contributes to these improvements, and policymakers should consider interventions in areas where transparency has not improved.

NeurIPS Conference 2025 Conference Paper

The Common Pile v0.1: An 8TB Dataset of Public Domain and Openly Licensed Text

  • Nikhil Kandpal
  • Brian Lester
  • Colin Raffel
  • Sebastian Majstorovic
  • Stella Biderman
  • Baber Abbasi
  • Luca Soldaini
  • Enrico Shippole

Large language models (LLMs) are typically trained on enormous quantities of unlicensed text, a practice that has led to scrutiny due to possible intellectual property infringement and ethical concerns. Training LLMs on openly licensed text presents a first step towards addressing these issues, but prior data collection efforts have yielded datasets too small or low-quality to produce performant LLMs. To address this gap, we collect, curate, and release the Common Pile v0. 1, an eight terabyte collection of openly licensed text designed for LLM pretraining. The Common Pile comprises content from 30 sources that span diverse domains including research papers, code, books, encyclopedias, educational materials, audio transcripts, and more. Crucially, we validate our efforts by training two 7 billion parameter LLMs on text from the Common Pile: Comma v0. 1-1T and Comma v0. 1-2T, trained on 1 and 2 trillion tokens respectively. Both models attain competitive performance to LLMs trained on unlicensed text with similar computational budgets, such as Llama 1 and 2 7B. In addition to releasing the Common Pile v0. 1 itself, we also release the code used in its creation as well as the training mixture and checkpoints for the Comma v0. 1 models.

NeurIPS Conference 2025 Conference Paper

The Leaderboard Illusion

  • Shivalika Singh
  • Yiyang Nan
  • Alex Wang
  • Daniel Dsouza
  • Sayash Kapoor
  • Ahmet Üstün
  • Sanmi Koyejo
  • Yuntian Deng

Measuring progress is fundamental to the advancement of any scientific field. As benchmarks play an increasingly central role, they also grow more susceptible to distortion. Chatbot Arena has emerged as the go-to leaderboard for ranking the most capable AI systems. Yet, in this work we identify systematic issues that have resulted in a distorted playing field. We find that undisclosed private testing practices benefit a handful of providers who are able to test multiple variants before public release and retract scores if desired. We establish that the ability of these providers to choose the best score leads to biased Arena scores due to selective disclosure of performance results. At an extreme, we found one provider testing 27 private variants before making one model public at the second position on the leaderboard. We also establish that proprietary closed models are sampled at higher rates (number of battles) and have fewer models removed from the arena than open-weight and open-source alternatives. Both these policies lead to large data access asymmetries over time. The top two providers have individually received an estimated 19. 2% and 20. 4% of all data on the arena. In contrast, a combined 83 open-weight models have only received an estimated 29. 7% of the total data. With conservative estimates, we show that access to Chatbot Arena data yields substantial benefits; even limited additional data can result in relative performance gains of up to 112% on ArenaHard, a test set from the arena distribution. Together, these dynamics result in overfitting to Arena-specific dynamics rather than general model quality. The Arena builds on the substantial efforts of both the organizers and an open community that maintains this valuable evaluation platform. We offer actionable recommendations to reform the Chatbot Arena's evaluation framework and promote fairer, more transparent benchmarking for the field.

TMLR Journal 2024 Journal Article

A Survey on Data Selection for Language Models

  • Alon Albalak
  • Yanai Elazar
  • Sang Michael Xie
  • Shayne Longpre
  • Nathan Lambert
  • Xinyi Wang
  • Niklas Muennighoff
  • Bairu Hou

A major factor in the recent success of large language models is the use of enormous and ever-growing text datasets for unsupervised pre-training. However, naively training a model on all available data may not be optimal (or feasible), as the quality of available text data can vary. Filtering out data can also decrease the carbon footprint and financial costs of training models by reducing the amount of training required. Data selection methods aim to determine which candidate data points to include in the training dataset and how to appropriately sample from the selected data points. The promise of improved data selection methods has caused the volume of research in the area to rapidly expand. However, because deep learning is mostly driven by empirical evidence and experimentation on large-scale data is expensive, few organizations have the resources for extensive data selection research. Consequently, knowledge of effective data selection practices has become concentrated within a few organizations, many of which do not openly share their findings and methodologies. To narrow this gap in knowledge, we present a comprehensive review of existing literature on data selection methods and related research areas, providing a taxonomy of existing approaches. By describing the current landscape of research, this work aims to accelerate progress in data selection by establishing an entry point for new and established researchers. Additionally, throughout this review we draw attention to noticeable holes in the literature and conclude the paper by proposing promising avenues for future research.

NeurIPS Conference 2024 Conference Paper

A Systematic Review of NeurIPS Dataset Management Practices

  • Yiwei Wu
  • Leah Ajmani
  • Shayne Longpre
  • Hanlin Li

As new machine learning methods demand larger training datasets, researchers and developers face significant challenges in dataset management. Although ethics reviews, documentation, and checklists have been established, it remains uncertain whether consistent dataset management practices exist across the community. This lack of a comprehensive overview hinders our ability to diagnose and address fundamental tensions and ethical issues related to managing large datasets. We present a systematic review of datasets published at the NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks track, focusing on four key aspects: provenance, distribution, ethical disclosure, and licensing. Our findings reveal that dataset provenance is often unclear due to ambiguous filtering and curation processes. Additionally, a variety of sites are used for dataset hosting, but only a few offer structured metadata and version control. These inconsistencies underscore the urgent need for standardized data infrastructures for the publication and management of datasets.

NeurIPS Conference 2024 Conference Paper

Consent in Crisis: The Rapid Decline of the AI Data Commons

  • Shayne Longpre
  • Robert Mahari
  • Ariel Lee
  • Campbell Lund
  • Hamidah Oderinwale
  • William Brannon
  • Nayan Saxena
  • Naana Obeng-Marnu

General-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) systems are built on massive swathes of public web data, assembled into corpora such as C4, RefinedWeb, and Dolma. To our knowledge, we conduct the first, large-scale, longitudinal audit of the consent protocols for the web domains underlying AI training corpora. Our audit of 14, 000 web domains provides an expansive view of crawlable web data and how codified data use preferences are changing over time. We observe a proliferation of AI-specific clauses to limit use, acute differences in restrictions on AI developers, as well as general inconsistencies between websites' expressed intentions in their Terms of Service and their robots. txt. We diagnose these as symptoms of ineffective web protocols, not designed to cope with the widespread re-purposing of the internet for AI. Our longitudinal analyses show that in a single year (2023-2024) there has been a rapid crescendo of data restrictions from web sources, rendering ~5\%+ of all tokens in C4, or 28%+ of the most actively maintained, critical sources in C4, fully restricted from use. For Terms of Service crawling restrictions, a full 45% of C4 is now restricted. If respected or enforced, these restrictions are rapidly biasing the diversity, freshness, and scaling laws for general-purpose AI systems. We hope to illustrate the emerging crises in data consent, for both developers and creators. The foreclosure of much of the open web will impact not only commercial AI, but also non-commercial AI and academic research.

ICLR Conference 2024 Conference Paper

Mixture-of-Experts Meets Instruction Tuning: A Winning Combination for Large Language Models

  • Sheng Shen 0001
  • Le Hou
  • Yanqi Zhou
  • Nan Du 0002
  • Shayne Longpre
  • Jason Wei
  • Hyung Won Chung
  • Barret Zoph

Sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) is a neural architecture design that adds learnable parameters to Large Language Models (LLMs) without increasing computational complexity (FLOPs). Instruction tuning is a technique for training LLMs to follow instructions. We advocate combining these two approaches, as we find that MoE models benefit more from instruction tuning than dense models. In particular, we conduct empirical studies across three experimental setups: (i) Direct finetuning on individual downstream tasks devoid of instruction tuning; (ii) Instruction tuning followed by in-context few-shot or zero-shot generalization on downstream tasks; and (iii) Instruction tuning supplemented by further finetuning on individual downstream tasks. In the first scenario, MoE models overall underperform dense models of identical computational capacity. This narrative, however, dramatically changes with the introduction of instruction tuning (in the second and third scenarios), used independently or in conjunction with task-specific finetuning. Our most powerful model, FLAN-MoE-32B, surpasses the performance of Flan-PaLM-62B on four benchmark tasks, while using only a third of the FLOPs. The advancements embodied by FLAN-MoE inspire a reevaluation of the design principles of large-scale, high-performance language models in the framework of task-agnostic learning.

ICLR Conference 2024 Conference Paper

OctoPack: Instruction Tuning Code Large Language Models

  • Niklas Muennighoff
  • Qian Liu 0033
  • Armel Randy Zebaze
  • Qinkai Zheng
  • Binyuan Hui
  • Terry Yue Zhuo
  • Swayam Singh
  • Xiangru Tang

Finetuning large language models (LLMs) on instructions leads to vast performance improvements on natural language tasks. We apply instruction tuning using code, leveraging the natural structure of Git commits, which pair code changes with human instructions. We compile CommitPack: 4 terabytes of Git commits across 350 programming languages. We benchmark CommitPack against other natural and synthetic code instructions (xP3x, Self-Instruct, OASST) on the 16B parameter StarCoder model, and achieve state-of-the-art performance among models not trained on OpenAI outputs, on the HumanEval Python benchmark (46.2% pass@1). We further introduce HumanEvalPack, expanding the HumanEval benchmark to a total of 3 coding tasks (Code Repair, Code Explanation, Code Synthesis) across 6 languages (Python, JavaScript, Java, Go, C++, Rust). Our models, OctoCoder and OctoGeeX, achieve the best performance across HumanEvalPack among all permissive models, demonstrating CommitPack's benefits in generalizing to a wider set of languages and natural coding tasks. Code, models and data are freely available at https://github.com/bigcode-project/octopack.

ICML Conference 2024 Conference Paper

Position: A Safe Harbor for AI Evaluation and Red Teaming

  • Shayne Longpre
  • Sayash Kapoor
  • Kevin Klyman
  • Ashwin Ramaswami
  • Rishi Bommasani
  • Borhane Blili-Hamelin
  • Yangsibo Huang
  • Aviya Skowron

Independent evaluation and red teaming are critical for identifying the risks posed by generative AI systems. However, the terms of service and enforcement strategies used by prominent AI companies to deter model misuse have disincentives on good faith safety evaluations. This causes some researchers to fear that conducting such research or releasing their findings will result in account suspensions or legal reprisal. Although some companies offer researcher access programs, they are an inadequate substitute for independent research access, as they have limited community representation, receive inadequate funding, and lack independence from corporate incentives. We propose that major generative AI developers commit to providing a legal and technical safe harbor, protecting public interest safety research and removing the threat of account suspensions or legal reprisal. These proposals emerged from our collective experience conducting safety, privacy, and trustworthiness research on generative AI systems, where norms and incentives could be better aligned with public interests, without exacerbating model misuse. We believe these commitments are a necessary step towards more inclusive and unimpeded community efforts to tackle the risks of generative AI.

ICML Conference 2024 Conference Paper

Position: AI-Powered Autonomous Weapons Risk Geopolitical Instability and Threaten AI Research

  • Riley Simmons-Edler
  • Ryan Paul Badman
  • Shayne Longpre
  • Kanaka Rajan

The recent embrace of machine learning (ML) in the development of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) creates serious risks to geopolitical stability and the free exchange of ideas in AI research. This topic has received comparatively little attention of late compared to risks stemming from superintelligent artificial general intelligence (AGI), but requires fewer assumptions about the course of technological development and is thus a nearer-future issue. ML is already enabling the substitution of AWS for human soldiers in many battlefield roles, reducing the upfront human cost, and thus political cost, of waging offensive war. In the case of peer adversaries, this increases the likelihood of "low intensity" conflicts which risk escalation to broader warfare. In the case of non-peer adversaries, it reduces the domestic blowback to wars of aggression. This effect can occur regardless of other ethical issues around the use of military AI such as the risk of civilian casualties, and does not require any superhuman AI capabilities. Further, the military value of AWS raises the specter of an AI-powered arms race and the misguided imposition of national security restrictions on AI research. Our goal in this paper is to raise awareness among the public and ML researchers on the near-future risks posed by full or near-full autonomy in military technology, and we provide regulatory suggestions to mitigate these risks. We call upon AI policy experts and the defense AI community in particular to embrace transparency and caution in their development and deployment of AWS to avoid the negative effects on global stability and AI research that we highlight here.

ICML Conference 2024 Conference Paper

Position: Data Authenticity, Consent, & Provenance for AI are all broken: what will it take to fix them?

  • Shayne Longpre
  • Robert Mahari
  • Naana Obeng-Marnu
  • William Brannon
  • Tobin South
  • Katy Ilonka Gero
  • Alex Pentland
  • Jad Kabbara

New capabilities in foundation models are owed in large part to massive, widely-sourced, and under-documented training data collections. Existing practices in data collection have led to challenges in tracing authenticity, verifying consent, preserving privacy, addressing representation and bias, respecting copyright, and overall developing ethical and trustworthy foundation models. In response, regulation is emphasizing the need for training data transparency to understand foundation models’ limitations. Based on a large-scale analysis of the foundation model training data landscape and existing solutions, we identify the missing infrastructure to facilitate responsible foundation model development practices. We examine the current shortcomings of common tools for tracing data authenticity, consent, and documentation, and outline how policymakers, developers, and data creators can facilitate responsible foundation model development by adopting universal data provenance standards.

ICML Conference 2024 Conference Paper

Position: On the Societal Impact of Open Foundation Models

  • Sayash Kapoor
  • Rishi Bommasani
  • Kevin Klyman
  • Shayne Longpre
  • Ashwin Ramaswami
  • Peter Cihon
  • Aspen K. Hopkins
  • Kevin Bankston

Foundation models are powerful technologies: how they are released publicly directly shapes their societal impact. In this position paper, we focus on open foundation models, defined here as those with broadly available model weights (e. g. , Llama 3, Stable Diffusion XL). We identify five distinctive properties (e. g. , greater customizability, poor monitoring) that mediate their benefits and risks. Open foundation models present significant benefits, with some caveats, that span innovation, competition, the distribution of decision-making power, and transparency. To understand their risks of misuse, we design a risk assessment framework for analyzing their marginal risk. Across several misuse vectors (e. g. , cyberattacks, bioweapons), we find that current research is insufficient to effectively characterize the marginal risk of open foundation models relative to pre-existing technologies. The framework helps explain why the marginal risk is low in some cases, clarifies disagreements about misuse risks by revealing that past work has focused on different subsets of the framework with different assumptions, and articulates a way forward for more constructive debate. Overall, our work helps support a more grounded assessment of the societal impact of open foundation models by outlining what research is needed to empirically validate their theoretical benefits and risks.

ICLR Conference 2024 Conference Paper

Prometheus: Inducing Fine-Grained Evaluation Capability in Language Models

  • Seungone Kim
  • Jamin Shin
  • Yejin Choi 0001
  • Joel Jang
  • Shayne Longpre
  • Hwaran Lee
  • Sangdoo Yun
  • Seongjin Shin

Recently, GPT-4 has become the de facto evaluator for long-form text generated by large language models (LLMs). However, for practitioners and researchers with large and custom evaluation tasks, GPT-4 is unreliable due to its closed-source nature, uncontrolled versioning, and prohibitive costs. In this work, we propose PROMETHEUS a fully open-source LLM that is on par with GPT-4’s evaluation capabilities when the appropriate reference materials (reference answer, score rubric) are accompanied. For this purpose, we construct a new dataset – FEEDBACK COLLECTION – that consists of 1K fine-grained score rubrics, 20K instructions, and 100K natural language feedback generated by GPT-4. Using the FEEDBACK COLLECTION, we train PROMETHEUS, a 13B evaluation-specific LLM that can assess any given response based on novel and unseen score rubrics and reference materials provided by the user. Our dataset’s versatility and diversity make our model generalize to challenging real-world criteria, such as prioritizing conciseness, child-readability, or varying levels of formality. We show that PROMETHEUS shows a stronger correlation with GPT-4 evaluation compared to ChatGPT on seven evaluation benchmarks (Two Feedback Collection testsets, MT Bench, Vicuna Bench, Flask Eval, MT Bench Human Judgment, and HHH Alignment), showing the efficacy of our model and dataset design. During human evaluation with hand-crafted score rubrics, PROMETHEUS shows a Pearson correlation of 0.897 with human evaluators, which is on par with GPT-4-0613 (0.882), and greatly outperforms ChatGPT (0.392). Remarkably, when assessing the quality of the generated feedback, PROMETHEUS demonstrates a win rate of 58.62% when compared to GPT-4 evaluation and a win rate of 79.57% when compared to ChatGPT evaluation. Our findings suggests that by adding reference materials and training on GPT-4 feedback, we can obtain effective open-source evaluator LMs.

JMLR Journal 2024 Journal Article

Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Models

  • Hyung Won Chung
  • Le Hou
  • Shayne Longpre
  • Barret Zoph
  • Yi Tay
  • William Fedus
  • Yunxuan Li
  • Xuezhi Wang

Finetuning language models on a collection of datasets phrased as instructions has been shown to improve model performance and generalization to unseen tasks. In this paper we explore instruction finetuning with a particular focus on (1) scaling the number of tasks, (2) scaling the model size, and (3) finetuning on chain-of-thought data. We find that instruction finetuning with the above aspects dramatically improves performance on a variety of model classes (PaLM, T5, U-PaLM), prompting setups (zero-shot, few-shot, CoT), and evaluation benchmarks (MMLU, BBH, TyDiQA, MGSM, open-ended generation, RealToxicityPrompts). For instance, Flan-PaLM 540B instruction-finetuned on 1.8K tasks outperforms PaLM 540B by a large margin (+9.4% on average). Flan-PaLM 540B achieves state-of-the-art performance on several benchmarks (at time of release), such as 75.2% on five-shot MMLU. We also publicly release Flan-T5 checkpoints,1 which achieve strong few-shot performance even compared to much larger models, such as PaLM 62B. Overall, instruction finetuning is a general method for improving the performance and usability of pretrained language models. [abs] [ pdf ][ bib ] &copy JMLR 2024. ( edit, beta )

TMLR Journal 2024 Journal Article

The Responsible Foundation Model Development Cheatsheet: A Review of Tools & Resources

  • Shayne Longpre
  • Stella Biderman
  • Alon Albalak
  • Hailey Schoelkopf
  • Daniel McDuff
  • Sayash Kapoor
  • Kevin Klyman
  • Kyle Lo

Foundation model development attracts a rapidly expanding body of contributors, scientists, and applications. To help shape responsible development practices, we introduce the Foundation Model Development Cheatsheet: a growing collection of 250+ tools and resources spanning text, vision, and speech modalities. We draw on a large body of prior work to survey resources (e.g. software, documentation, frameworks, guides, and practical tools) that support informed data selection, processing, and understanding, precise and limitation-aware artifact documentation, efficient model training, advance awareness of the environmental impact from training, careful model evaluation of capabilities, risks, and claims, as well as responsible model release, licensing and deployment practices. We hope this curated collection of resources helps guide more responsible development. The process of curating this list, enabled us to review the AI development ecosystem, revealing what tools are critically missing, misused, or over-used in existing practices. We find that (i) tools for data sourcing, model evaluation, and monitoring are critically under-serving ethical and real-world needs, (ii) evaluations for model safety, capabilities, and environmental impact all lack reproducibility and transparency, (iii) text and particularly English-centric analyses continue to dominate over multilingual and multi-modal analyses, and (iv) evaluation of systems, rather than just models, is needed so that capabilities and impact are assessed in context.

ICML Conference 2023 Conference Paper

The Flan Collection: Designing Data and Methods for Effective Instruction Tuning

  • Shayne Longpre
  • Le Hou
  • Tu Vu
  • Albert Webson
  • Hyung Won Chung
  • Yi Tay
  • Denny Zhou
  • Quoc V. Le

We study the design decision of publicly available instruction tuning methods, by reproducing and breaking down the development of Flan 2022 (Chung et al. , 2022). Through careful ablation studies on the Flan Collection of tasks and methods, we tease apart the effect of design decisions which enable Flan-T5 to outperform prior work by 3-17% across evaluation settings. We find task balancing and enrichment techniques are overlooked but critical to effective instruction tuning, and in particular, training with mixed prompt settings (zero-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought) actually yields equivalent or stronger (2%) performance in all settings. In further experiments we show Flan-T5 requires less finetuning to converge higher and faster than T5 on single downstream tasks – motivating instruction-tuned models as more computationally-efficient starting checkpoints for new tasks. Finally, to accelerate research on instruction tuning, we make the Flan 2022 collection of datasets, templates, and methods publicly available.

NeurIPS Conference 2022 Conference Paper

The BigScience ROOTS Corpus: A 1.6TB Composite Multilingual Dataset

  • Hugo Laurençon
  • Lucile Saulnier
  • Thomas Wang
  • Christopher Akiki
  • Albert Villanova del Moral
  • Teven Le Scao
  • Leandro Von Werra
  • Chenghao Mou

As language models grow ever larger, the need for large-scale high-quality text datasets has never been more pressing, especially in multilingual settings. The BigScience workshop, a 1-year international and multidisciplinary initiative, was formed with the goal of researching and training large language models as a values-driven undertaking, putting issues of ethics, harm, and governance in the foreground. This paper documents the data creation and curation efforts undertaken by BigScience to assemble the Responsible Open-science Open-collaboration Text Sources (ROOTS) corpus, a 1. 6TB dataset spanning 59 languages that was used to train the 176-billion-parameter BigScience Large Open-science Open-access Multilingual (BLOOM) language model. We further release a large initial subset of the corpus and analyses thereof, and hope to empower large-scale monolingual and multilingual modeling projects with both the data and the processing tools, as well as stimulate research around this large multilingual corpus.

v2026.09.13