David A. Demeter

Victor S. Bursztyn, David Demeter, Doug Downey et al.

How to usefully encode compositional task structure has long been a core challenge in AI. Recent work in chain of thought prompting has shown that for very large neural language models (LMs), explicitly demonstrating the inferential steps involved in a target task may improve performance over end-to-end learning that focuses on the target task alone. However, chain of thought prompting has significant limitations due to its dependency on huge pretrained LMs. In this work, we present compositional fine-tuning (CFT): an approach based on explicitly decomposing a target task into component tasks, and then fine-tuning smaller LMs on a curriculum of such component tasks. We apply CFT to recommendation tasks in two domains, world travel and local dining, as well as a previously studied inferential task (sports understanding). We show that CFT outperforms end-to-end learning even with equal amounts of data, and gets consistently better as more component tasks are modeled via fine-tuning. Compared with chain of thought prompting, CFT performs at least as well using LMs only 7.4% of the size, and is moreover applicable to task domains for which data are not available during pretraining.

David Demeter, Oshin Agarwal, Simon Ben Igeri et al.

Academic literature does not give much guidance on how to build the best possible customer-facing summarization system from existing research components. Here we present analyses to inform the selection of a system backbone from popular models; we find that in both automatic and human evaluation, BART performs better than PEGASUS and T5. We also find that when applied cross-domain, summarizers exhibit considerably worse performance. At the same time, a system fine-tuned on heterogeneous domains performs well on all domains and will be most suitable for a broad-domain summarizer. Our work highlights the need for heterogeneous domain summarization benchmarks. We find considerable variation in system output that can be captured only with human evaluation and are thus unlikely to be reflected in standard leaderboards with only automatic evaluation.