In the rapidly evolving field of Large Language Models (LLMs), selecting high-quality data for fine-tuning is essential. This paper focuses on task-specific data pruning and selection to enhance fine-tuning. We introduce an innovative framework, termed P3, which improves LLM performance through a dynamic, adaptive training strategy. Specifically, P3 comprises the following components: (1) Policy-driven Difficulty Measurement: we begin by measuring the difficulty of data based on the model's real-time performance, transitioning from static, predefined metrics to more dynamic and adaptable ones. (2) Pace-adaptive Selection: we employ self-paced learning (SPL) to gradually select increasingly challenging data, thereby progressively enhancing the model's performance. (3) Diversity Promotion: we integrate Determinantal Point Process (DPP) into the selection process to promote the diversity within and between samples, enriching the learning process. We have validated our method on two well-known LLM datasets, APPS and MATH, designed for logical reasoning scenarios. The results show that our P3 framework significantly improves training outcomes compared to traditional methods. By fundamentally refining data selection and utilization strategies, P3 not only advances theoretical understanding of dynamic training approaches but also provides a versatile framework that can revolutionize model training in natural language processing.

The rapid growth in natural language processing (NLP) over the last couple years has generated student interest and excitement in learning more about the field. In this paper, we present two types of students that NLP courses might want to train. First, an "NLP engineer" who is able to flexibly design, build and apply new technologies in NLP for a wide range of tasks. Second, an "NLP scholar" who is able to pose, refine and answer questions in NLP and how it relates to the society, while also learning to effectively communicate these answers to a broader audience. While these two types of skills are not mutually exclusive -- NLP engineers should be able to think critically, and NLP scholars should be able to build systems -- we think that courses can differ in the balance of these skills. As educators at Small Liberal Arts Colleges, the strengths of our students and our institution favors an approach that is better suited to train NLP scholars. In this paper we articulate what kinds of skills an NLP scholar should have, and then adopt a backwards design to propose course components that can aid the acquisition of these skills.

The E-learning environment offers greater flexibility compared to face-to-face interactions, allowing for adapting educational content to meet learners' individual needs and abilities through personalization and customization of e-content and the educational process. Despite the advantages of this approach, customizing the learning environment can reduce the costs of tutoring systems for similar learners by utilizing the same content and process for co-like learning groups. Various indicators for grouping learners exist, but many of them are conceptual, uncertain, and subject to change over time. In this article, we propose using the Felder-Silverman model, which is based on learning styles, to group similar learners. Additionally, we model the behaviors and actions of e-learners in a network environment using Fuzzy Set Theory (FST). After identifying the learning styles of the learners, co-like learning groups are formed, and each group receives adaptive content based on their preferences, needs, talents, and abilities. By comparing the results of the experimental and control groups, we determine the effectiveness of the proposed grouping method. In terms of "educational success," the weighted average score of the experimental group is 17.65 out of 20, while the control group achieves a score of 12.6 out of 20. Furthermore, the "educational satisfaction" of the experimental group is 67%, whereas the control group's satisfaction level is 37%.

Learning with a limited number of labeled data is a central problem in real-world applications of machine learning, as it is often expensive to obtain annotations. To deal with the scarcity of labeled data, transfer learning is a conventional approach; it suggests to learn a transferable knowledge by training a neural network from multiple other sources. In this paper, we investigate transfer learning of tabular tasks, which has been less studied and successful in the literature, compared to other domains, e.g., vision and language. This is because tables are inherently heterogeneous, i.e., they contain different columns and feature spaces, making transfer learning difficult. On the other hand, recent advances in natural language processing suggest that the label scarcity issue can be mitigated by utilizing in-context learning capability of large language models (LLMs). Inspired by this and the fact that LLMs can also process tables within a unified language space, we ask whether LLMs can be effective for tabular transfer learning, in particular, under the scenarios where the source and target datasets are of different format. As a positive answer, we propose a novel tabular transfer learning framework, coined Prompt to Transfer (P2T), that utilizes unlabeled (or heterogeneous) source data with LLMs. Specifically, P2T identifies a column feature in a source dataset that is strongly correlated with a target task feature to create examples relevant to the target task, thus creating pseudo-demonstrations for prompts. Experimental results demonstrate that P2T outperforms previous methods on various tabular learning benchmarks, showing good promise for the important, yet underexplored tabular transfer learning problem. Code is available at https://github.com/jaehyun513/P2T.

One-shot Imitation Learning~(OSIL) aims to imbue AI agents with the ability to learn a new task from a single demonstration. To supervise the learning, OSIL typically requires a prohibitively large number of paired expert demonstrations -- i.e. trajectories corresponding to different variations of the same semantic task. To overcome this limitation, we introduce the semi-supervised OSIL problem setting, where the learning agent is presented with a large dataset of trajectories with no task labels (i.e. an unpaired dataset), along with a small dataset of multiple demonstrations per semantic task (i.e. a paired dataset). This presents a more realistic and practical embodiment of few-shot learning and requires the agent to effectively leverage weak supervision from a large dataset of trajectories. Subsequently, we develop an algorithm specifically applicable to this semi-supervised OSIL setting. Our approach first learns an embedding space where different tasks cluster uniquely. We utilize this embedding space and the clustering it supports to self-generate pairings between trajectories in the large unpaired dataset. Through empirical results on simulated control tasks, we demonstrate that OSIL models trained on such self-generated pairings are competitive with OSIL models trained with ground-truth labels, presenting a major advancement in the label-efficiency of OSIL.

Our work presents a novel angle for evaluating language models' (LMs) mathematical abilities, by investigating whether they can discern skills and concepts enabled by math content. We contribute two datasets: one consisting of 385 fine-grained descriptions of K-12 math skills and concepts, or standards, from Achieve the Core (ATC), and another of 9.9K problems labeled with these standards (MathFish). Working with experienced teachers, we find that LMs struggle to tag and verify standards linked to problems, and instead predict labels that are close to ground truth, but differ in subtle ways. We also show that LMs often generate problems that do not fully align with standards described in prompts. Finally, we categorize problems in GSM8k using math standards, allowing us to better understand why some problems are more difficult to solve for models than others.

This study explores the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4, to enhance objectivity in organizational task performance evaluations. Through comparative analyses across two studies, including various task performance outputs, we demonstrate that LLMs can serve as a reliable and even superior alternative to human raters in evaluating knowledge-based performance outputs, which are a key contribution of knowledge workers. Our results suggest that GPT ratings are comparable to human ratings but exhibit higher consistency and reliability. Additionally, combined multiple GPT ratings on the same performance output show strong correlations with aggregated human performance ratings, akin to the consensus principle observed in performance evaluation literature. However, we also find that LLMs are prone to contextual biases, such as the halo effect, mirroring human evaluative biases. Our research suggests that while LLMs are capable of extracting meaningful constructs from text-based data, their scope is currently limited to specific forms of performance evaluation. By highlighting both the potential and limitations of LLMs, our study contributes to the discourse on AI role in management studies and sets a foundation for future research to refine AI theoretical and practical applications in management.

Directly learning from examples of random difficulty levels is often challenging for both humans and machine learning models. A more effective strategy involves exposing learners to examples in a progressive order, from easy to difficult. Curriculum Learning (CL) has been proposed to implement this strategy in machine learning model training. However, two key challenges persist in CL framework design: defining the difficulty of training data and determining the appropriate amount of data to input at each training step. This paper presents a Psychology-based Unified Dynamic Framework for Curriculum Learning (PUDF), drawing inspiration from psychometrics. We quantify the difficulty of training data by applying Item Response Theory (IRT) to responses from Artificial Crowds (AC). This theory-driven IRT-AC approach leads to global (i.e., model-independent) and interpretable difficulty values. Leveraging IRT, we propose a Dynamic Data Selection via Model Ability Estimation (DDS-MAE) strategy to schedule the appropriate amount of data during model training. Since our difficulty labeling and model ability estimation are based on a consistent theory, namely IRT, their values are comparable within the same scope, potentially leading to a faster convergence compared to the other CL methods. Experimental results demonstrate that fine-tuning pre-trained language models with PUDF enhances their performance on the GLUE benchmark. Moreover, PUDF surpasses other state-of-the-art (SOTA) CL methods on the GLUE benchmark. We further explore the components of PUDF, namely the difficulty measurer (IRT-AC) and the training scheduler (DDS-MAE) qualitatively and quantitatively. Lastly, we conduct an ablation study to clarify which components of PUDF contribute to faster convergence and higher accuracy.

The task of deciding whether two documents are written by the same author is challenging for both machines and humans. This task is even more challenging when the two documents are written about different topics (e.g. baseball vs. politics) or in different genres (e.g. a blog post vs. an academic article). For machines, the problem is complicated by the relative lack of real-world training examples that cross the topic boundary and the vanishing scarcity of cross-genre data. We propose targeted methods for training data selection and a novel learning curriculum that are designed to discourage a model's reliance on topic information for authorship attribution and correspondingly force it to incorporate information more robustly indicative of style no matter the topic. These refinements yield a 62.7% relative improvement in average cross-genre authorship attribution, as well as 16.6% in the per-genre condition.

The Exame Nacional do Ensino M\'edio (ENEM) is a pivotal test for Brazilian students, required for admission to a significant number of universities in Brazil. The test consists of four objective high-school level tests on Math, Humanities, Natural Sciences and Languages, and one writing essay. Students' answers to the test and to the accompanying socioeconomic status questionnaire are made public every year (albeit anonymized) due to transparency policies from the Brazilian Government. In the context of large language models (LLMs), these data lend themselves nicely to comparing different groups of humans with AI, as we can have access to human and machine answer distributions. We leverage these characteristics of the ENEM dataset and compare GPT-3.5 and 4, and MariTalk, a model trained using Portuguese data, to humans, aiming to ascertain how their answers relate to real societal groups and what that may reveal about the model biases. We divide the human groups by using socioeconomic status (SES), and compare their answer distribution with LLMs for each question and for the essay. We find no significant biases when comparing LLM performance to humans on the multiple-choice Brazilian Portuguese tests, as the distance between model and human answers is mostly determined by the human accuracy. A similar conclusion is found by looking at the generated text as, when analyzing the essays, we observe that human and LLM essays differ in a few key factors, one being the choice of words where model essays were easily separable from human ones. The texts also differ syntactically, with LLM generated essays exhibiting, on average, smaller sentences and less thought units, among other differences. These results suggest that, for Brazilian Portuguese in the ENEM context, LLM outputs represent no group of humans, being significantly different from the answers from Brazilian students across all tests.