Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Albert Webson

dblp:276/1456 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
9ranked-venue papers
2as first author
8since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 8 · 2 first-author · 7 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
7 papers
Language models and text generation · 62% Transfer learning and domain adaptation · 15% Deep learning architectures and training · 9%
Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper
Multimedia systems and quality of experience · 33% Visualization and visual analytics · 33% Visual content generation and editing · 33%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Information retrieval · 100%

Topics — the 16 heaviest of 17, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
instruction tuning
2.232024
Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Models · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024
Mixture-of-Experts Meets Instruction Tuning: A Winning Combination for Large Language Models · ICLR 2024
The Flan Collection: Designing Data and Methods for Effective Instruction Tuning · ICML 2023
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
chain-of-thought reasoning
0.812024
Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Models · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
few-shot learning
0.812024
Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Models · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model
0.812024
Mixture-of-Experts Meets Instruction Tuning: A Winning Combination for Large Language Models · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
mixture of experts
0.812024
Mixture-of-Experts Meets Instruction Tuning: A Winning Combination for Large Language Models · ICLR 2024
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › multilingual language models
cross-lingual generalization
0.712023
Crosslingual Generalization through Multitask Finetuning · ACL (1) 2023
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model fine-tuning
multi-task fine-tuning
0.712023
Crosslingual Generalization through Multitask Finetuning · ACL (1) 2023
Multimedia systems and quality of experience › user interaction
human-AI interaction
0.712023
Interactive and Visual Prompt Engineering for Ad-hoc Task Adaptation with Large Language Models · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2023
Visual content generation and editing
prompt optimization
0.712023
Interactive and Visual Prompt Engineering for Ad-hoc Task Adaptation with Large Language Models · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2023
Visualization and visual analytics › visual analytics
visual analytics for machine learning
0.712023
Interactive and Visual Prompt Engineering for Ad-hoc Task Adaptation with Large Language Models · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2023
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
multi-task learning
0.612022
Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalization · ICLR 2022
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation › zero-shot learning
zero-shot task generalization
0.612022
Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalization · ICLR 2022
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › word representation
word embedding
0.412020
Do "Undocumented Workers" == "Illegal Aliens"? Differentiating Denotation and Connotation in Vector Spaces · EMNLP (1) 2020
Information retrieval › ranking › text ranking
document ranking
0.412020
Do "Undocumented Workers" == "Illegal Aliens"? Differentiating Denotation and Connotation in Vector Spaces · EMNLP (1) 2020
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › large-scale learning
model scaling
0.212024
Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Models · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › prompting
zero-shot prompting
0.212023
Interactive and Visual Prompt Engineering for Ad-hoc Task Adaptation with Large Language Models · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

iterative optimization · 1.3interactive visualization · 1.3adversarial neural network · 0.9sparse architecture · 0.8mixture of experts · 0.8instruction tuning · 0.8multi-task fine-tuning · 0.7fine-tuning · 0.7ablation study · 0.7multitask prompted training · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Mixture-of-Experts Meets Instruction Tuning: A Winning Combination for Large Language Models
abstract
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.
Sheng Shen 0001, Le Hou, Yanqi Zhou, Nan Du 0002, Shayne Longpre, Jason Wei, Hyung Won Chung, Barret Zoph, William Fedus, Tu Vu, Yuexin Wu, Wuyang Chen 0001, Albert Webson, Yunxuan Li, Vincent Y. Zhao, Hongkun Yu 0001, Kurt Keutzer, Trevor Darrell, Denny Zhou
ICLR14
2024 In-context Learning Generalizes, But Not Always Robustly: The Case of Syntax
abstract
Aaron Mueller, Albert Webson, Jackson Petty, Tal Linzen. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2024.
Aaron Mueller, Albert Webson, Jackson Petty, Tal Linzen
NAACL-HLT2
2024 Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Models
abstract
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.
Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Yunxuan Li, Xuezhi Wang 0002, Mostafa Dehghani 0001, Siddhartha Brahma, Albert Webson, Shixiang Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suzgun, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Alex Castro-Ros, Marie Pellat, Kevin Robinson, Dasha Valter, Sharan Narang, Adams Yu, Vincent Y. Zhao, Yanping Huang, Andrew M. Dai, Hongkun Yu 0001, Slav Petrov, Ed H. Chi, Jeffrey Dean, Jacob Devlin, Adam Roberts, Denny Zhou, Quoc V. Le, Jason Wei
J. Mach. Learn. Res.11
2023 Crosslingual Generalization through Multitask Finetuning
abstract
Niklas Muennighoff, Thomas Wang, Lintang Sutawika, Adam Roberts, Stella Biderman, Teven Le Scao, M Saiful Bari, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Hailey Schoelkopf, Xiangru Tang, Dragomir Radev, Alham Fikri Aji, Khalid Almubarak, Samuel Albanie, Zaid Alyafeai, Albert Webson, Edward Raff, Colin Raffel. Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2023.
Niklas Muennighoff, Thomas Wang, Lintang Sutawika, Adam Roberts, Stella Biderman, Teven Le Scao, Saiful Bari, Sheng Shen 0001, Hailey Schoelkopf, Xiangru Tang, Dragomir R. Radev, Alham Fikri Aji, Khalid Almubarak, Samuel Albanie, Zaid Alyafeai, Albert Webson, Edward Raff, Colin Raffel
ACL (1)17
2023 The Flan Collection: Designing Data and Methods for Effective Instruction Tuning
abstract
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.
Shayne Longpre, Le Hou, Tu Vu, Albert Webson, Hyung Won Chung, Yi Tay, Denny Zhou, Quoc V. Le, Barret Zoph, Jason Wei, Adam Roberts
ICML4
2023 Interactive and Visual Prompt Engineering for Ad-hoc Task Adaptation with Large Language Models
abstract
State-of-the-art neural language models can now be used to solve ad-hoc language tasks through zero-shot prompting without the need for supervised training. This approach has gained popularity in recent years, and researchers have demonstrated prompts that achieve strong accuracy on specific NLP tasks. However, finding a prompt for new tasks requires experimentation. Different prompt templates with different wording choices lead to significant accuracy differences. PromptIDE allows users to experiment with prompt variations, visualize prompt performance, and iteratively optimize prompts. We developed a workflow that allows users to first focus on model feedback using small data before moving on to a large data regime that allows empirical grounding of promising prompts using quantitative measures of the task. The tool then allows easy deployment of the newly created ad-hoc models. We demonstrate the utility of PromptIDE (demo: http://prompt.vizhub.ai) and our workflow using several real-world use cases.
Hendrik Strobelt, Albert Webson, Victor Sanh, Benjamin Hoover, Johanna Beyer, Hanspeter Pfister, Alexander M. Rush
IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph.2
2022 Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalization
Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H. Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim 0002, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal V. Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen 0001, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Trishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, Andrea Santilli, Thibault Févry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Teven Le Scao, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf 0008, Alexander M. Rush
ICLR2
2022 Do Prompt-Based Models Really Understand the Meaning of Their Prompts?
abstract
Recently, a boom of papers has shown extraordinary progress in zero-shot and few-shot learning with various prompt-based models.It is commonly argued that prompts help models to learn faster in the same way that humans learn faster when provided with task instructions expressed in natural language.In this study, we experiment with over 30 prompt templates manually written for natural language inference (NLI).We find that models can learn just as fast with many prompts that are intentionally irrelevant or even pathologically misleading as they do with instructively "good" prompts.Further, such patterns hold even for models as large as 175 billion parameters (Brown et al., 2020) as well as the recently proposed instruction-tuned models which are trained on hundreds of prompts (Sanh et al., 2021).That is, instruction-tuned models often produce good predictions with irrelevant and misleading prompts even at zero shots.In sum, notwithstanding prompt-based models' impressive improvement, we find evidence of serious limitations that question the degree to which such improvement is derived from models understanding task instructions in ways analogous to humans' use of task instructions.* Unabridged version available on arXiv.Code, interactive figures, and statistical test results available at https://github. com/awebson/prompt_semantics arbitrary dimensions of a one-hot vector.In contrast, suppose a human is given a prompt such as: Given that " Given that " Given that " Given that " Given that " Given that " Given that " Given that " Given that " Given that " Given that " Given that " Given that " Given that " Given that " Given that " Given that "no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq yet.", is it definitely correct that " ", is it definitely correct that " ", is it definitely correct that " ", is it definitely correct that " ", is it definitely correct that " ", is it definitely correct that " ", is it definitely correct that " ", is it definitely correct that " ", is it definitely correct that " ", is it definitely correct that " ", is it definitely correct that " ", is it definitely correct that " ", is it definitely correct that " ", is it definitely correct that " ", is it definitely correct that " ", is it definitely correct that " ", is it definitely correct that "weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq."? "? "? "? "?"? "? "? "? "? "? "? "? "? "? "? "? 1 Then it would be no surprise that they are able to perform the task more accurately and without needing many examples to figure out what the task is.
Albert Webson, Ellie Pavlick
NAACL-HLT1
2020 Do "Undocumented Workers" == "Illegal Aliens"? Differentiating Denotation and Connotation in Vector Spaces
abstract
In politics, neologisms are frequently invented for partisan objectives.For example, "undocumented workers" and "illegal aliens" refer to the same group of people (i.e., they have the same denotation), but they carry clearly different connotations.Examples like these have traditionally posed a challenge to referencebased semantic theories and led to increasing acceptance of alternative theories (e.g., Two-Factor Semantics) among philosophers and cognitive scientists.In NLP, however, popular pretrained models encode both denotation and connotation as one entangled representation.In this study, we propose an adversarial neural network that decomposes a pretrained representation as independent denotation and connotation representations.For intrinsic interpretability, we show that words with the same denotation but different connotations (e.g., "immigrants" vs. "aliens", "estate tax" vs. "death tax") move closer to each other in denotation space while moving further apart in connotation space.For extrinsic application, we train an information retrieval system with our disentangled representations and show that the denotation vectors improve the viewpoint diversity of document rankings.
Albert Webson, Zhizhong Chen, Carsten Eickhoff, Ellie Pavlick
EMNLP (1)1