Improving Instruct Models for Free: A Study on Partial Adaptation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Instruct models, obtained from various instruction tuning or post-training steps, are commonly deemed superior and more usable than their base counterpart. While the model gains instruction following ability, instruction tuning may lead to forgetting the knowledge from pre-training or it may encourage the model to become overly conversational or verbose. This, in turn, can lead to degradation of in-context few-shot learning performance. In this work, we study the performance trajectory between base and instruct models by scaling down the strength of instruction-tuning via the partial adaption method. We show that, across several model families and model sizes, reducing the strength of instruction-tuning results in material improvement on a few-shot in-context learning benchmark covering a variety of classic natural language tasks. This comes at the cost of losing some degree of instruction following ability as measured by AlpacaEval. Our study shines light on the potential trade-off between in-context learning and instruction following abilities that is worth considering in practice.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Apr 2025.
Builds on
22 of 31 references.
References · 22
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,886
- 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,148
- 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,100
- 2017TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehensioncited by 2,955
- 2019PIQA: Reasoning about Physical Commonsense in Natural Languagecited by 2,883
- 2022Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Themcited by 1,807
- 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preferencecited by 1,184
- 2019DROP: A Reading Comprehension Benchmark Requiring Discrete Reasoning Over Paragraphscited by 903
- 2024Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluatorscited by 897
10 more
- 2024OLMo: Accelerating the Science of Language Modelscited by 613
- 2023Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectorscited by 486
- 2021TAT-QA: A Question Answering Benchmark on a Hybrid of Tabular and Textual Content in Financecited by 408
- 2018QuAC : Question Answering in Contextcited by 381
- 2022ConvFinQA: Exploring the Chain of Numerical Reasoning in Conversational Finance Question Answeringcited by 196
- 2022WHEN FLUE MEETS FLANG: Benchmarks and Large Pre-trained Language Model for Financial Domaincited by 117
- 2022PACIFIC: Towards Proactive Conversational Question Answering over Tabular and Textual Data in Financecited by 45
- 2024Scalable Data Ablation Approximations for Language Models through Modular Training and Mergingcited by 11
- 2024RE-Adapt: Reverse Engineered Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 9
- 2024A Tale of Trust and Accuracy: Base vs. Instruct LLMs in RAG Systemscited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
2 papers.