mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

On the Loss of Context-awareness in General Instruction Fine-tuning

arXiv 2411.02688 ↗First posted 5 Nov 2024cs.CL cs.LGcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Pre-trained Large Language Models (LLMs) require post-training methods such as supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on instruction-response pairs to enable instruction following. However, this process can potentially harm existing capabilities learned during pre-training. In this paper, we investigate the loss of context awareness after SFT, where context awareness is defined as the ability to extract and understand information from user-provided context and respond accordingly. We identify and demonstrate that the loss of context awareness, particularly in open-source models, occurs in instruction fine-tuned LLMs when the chat template is applied to input prompts. We identify that the performance decline is associated with a bias toward different roles learned during conversational instruction fine-tuning. We demonstrate this correlation by visualizing changes in attention allocation after the chat template is applied and manually steering the attention heads. The bias can be learned from training examples that align with the model's internal knowledge and rely less on the user-provided context to generate correct responses. Based on these observations, we propose a metric to identify context-dependent examples from general instruction fine-tuning datasets. We then apply conditional instruction fine-tuning with a context-dependency indicator, enabling the model to preserve context awareness after SFT. Empirical experiments on four context-dependent downstream tasks and three pre-trained LLMs of different sizes show that our method effectively mitigates the loss of context awareness without compromising general instruction-following capabilities.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 33 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Nov 2024.

Builds on

33 of 37 references.

References · 33

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  3. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
  4. 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,297
  5. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  6. 2016Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networkscited by 4,787
  7. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,182
  8. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,148
  9. 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,912
  10. 2021Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learnerscited by 3,780
  11. 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,720
  12. 2023Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contextscited by 3,455
21 more
  1. 2023QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMscited by 3,418
  2. 2023A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questionscited by 1,601
  3. 2022Atlas: Few-shot Learning with Retrieval Augmented Language Modelscited by 952
  4. 2019DROP: A Reading Comprehension Benchmark Requiring Discrete Reasoning Over Paragraphscited by 903
  5. 2023Enhancing Chat Language Models by Scaling High-quality Instructional Conversationscited by 839
  6. 2023The Flan Collection: Designing Data and Methods for Effective Instruction Tuningcited by 739
  7. 2022Improving alignment of dialogue agents via targeted human judgementscited by 531
  8. 2023How Far Can Camels Go? Exploring the State of Instruction Tuning on Open Resourcescited by 408
  9. 2018QuAC : Question Answering in Contextcited by 381
  10. 2023A Long Way to Go: Investigating Length Correlations in RLHFcited by 291
  11. 2023Pretraining Language Models with Human Preferencescited by 247
  12. 2024Retrieval Head Mechanistically Explains Long-Context Factualitycited by 232
  13. 2020Nearest Neighbor Machine Translationcited by 209
  14. 2023Mitigating the Alignment Tax of RLHFcited by 183
  15. 2023Chain of Hindsight Aligns Language Models with Feedbackcited by 148
  16. 2024Make Your LLM Fully Utilize the Contextcited by 119
  17. 2023Retrieval meets Long Context Large Language Modelscited by 115
  18. 2023SteerLM: Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHFcited by 111
  19. 2024Found in the Middle: Calibrating Positional Attention Bias Improves Long Context Utilizationcited by 101
  20. 2023Tell Your Model Where to Attend: Post-hoc Attention Steering for LLMscited by 91
  21. 2024Disperse-Then-Merge: Pushing the Limits of Instruction Tuning via Alignment Tax Reductioncited by 18

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 5; 2026: 6.

11 papers.