# Third-Party Language Model Performance Prediction from Instruction

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.12413 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.12413/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 20 of its 28 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 19 Mar 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 20 of 20)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.11692/) (2019)
- [Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.01652/) (2021)
- [Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10560/) (2022)
- [Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.04615/) (2022)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.09690/) (2021)
- [Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14975/) (2023)
- [Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Words](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.14334/) (2022)
- [Cross-Task Generalization via Natural Language Crowdsourcing Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08773/) (2021)
- [How Far Can Camels Go? Exploring the State of Instruction Tuning on Open Resources](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.04751/) (2023)
- [Unnatural Instructions: Tuning Language Models with (Almost) No Human Labor](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09689/) (2022)
- [Do Prompt-Based Models Really Understand the Meaning of their Prompts?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.01247/) (2021)
- [Surface Form Competition: Why the Highest Probability Answer Isn't Always Right](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08315/) (2021)
- [Prompting GPT-3 To Be Reliable](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.09150/) (2022)
- [Predicting Performance for Natural Language Processing Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00870/) (2020)
- [How Predictable Are Large Language Model Capabilities? A Case Study on BIG-bench](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14947/) (2023)
- [Towards More Fine-grained and Reliable NLP Performance Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.05486/) (2021)
- [Estimating Large Language Model Capabilities without Labeled Test Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14802/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Language model-based instruction-following systems have lately shown increasing performance on many benchmark tasks, demonstrating the capability of adapting to a broad variety of instructions. However, such systems are often not designed to be transparent about their limitations; a user may easily prompt a model with an instruction without any idea of whether the responses should be expected to be accurate, or if the system is even capable of performing the task. We propose a third party performance prediction framework, where a separate model is trained to predict the metric resulting from evaluating an instruction-following system on a task while assuming access only to its inputs and outputs at inference time. We perform this analysis with a variety of both open and closed instruction-following models as well as multiple performance predictors, and examine the effect of various factors such as model size, number of training tasks, and prompt format. Our findings indicate that third-party performance prediction is very challenging, and much work remains in developing predictors that can automatically reveal the limitations of modern instruction-following natural language processing systems.