LLMs as Function Approximators: Terminology,
Taxonomy,
and Questions for Evaluation
Abstract
Natural Language Processing has moved rather quickly from modelling specific tasks to taking more general pre-trained models and fine-tuning them for specific tasks, to a point where we now have what appear to be inherently generalist models. This paper argues that the resultant loss of clarity on what these models model leads to metaphors like “artificial general intelligences” that are not helpful for evaluating their strengths and weaknesses. The proposal is to see their generality, and their potential value, in their ability to approximate specialist function, based on a natural language specification. This framing brings to the fore questions of the quality of the approximation, but beyond that, also questions of discoverability, stability, and protectability of these functions. As the paper will show, this framing hence brings together in one conceptual framework various aspects of evaluation, both from a practical and a theoretical perspective, as well as questions often relegated to a secondary status (such as “prompt injection” and “jailbreaking”).
LLMs as Function Approximators: Terminology,
Taxonomy,
and Questions for Evaluation
David Schlangen Computational Linguistics, Department of Linguistics University of Potsdam, Germany [email protected]
1 Introduction
In March 2023, Bubeck et al. (2023) released a pre-print that in retrospect can be seen as helpful contemporary documentation of the confusion that the release by OpenAI first of the Large Language Model (LLM) GPT-3.5,111https://openai.com/index/chatgpt/ and then of GPT-4 OpenAI (2023) had caused at the time. The authors reacted to the perceived generality—“the ability to seemingly understand and connect any topic, and to perform tasks that go beyond the typical scope of narrow AI systems” (Bubeck et al., 2023, p.7)— of the GPT-4 model (to which they had early access) by letting go of all hitherto accepted standards of evaluation (namely, to use carefully crafted datasets representing interesting and challenging tasks) and instead launching a somewhat unsystematic breadth-first search of tricks the model can do, a process leading them to see “Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence” (as in the title of their paper).
Now, a year later, the practices of a more normal science Kuhn (1962) have returned. Evaluation through task datasets has adapted Liang et al. (2023); Srivastava et al. (2022); Hendrycks et al. (2021), for example through attempts at more systematically covering the task space (an idea especially thoroughly realised in HELM).222https://crfm.stanford.edu/helm/ In a way, even the self-guided one-off task exploration of Bubeck et al. (2023) has been codified, in the Chatbot Arena Chiang et al. (2024); Zheng et al. (2023) which allows self-selected testers to freely pose tasks, which are then given to two models in parallel, which are then ranked in terms of the relative quality of their response.
But still, there remains uncertainty about how to grasp what these models are, beyond what is technically certain (which is that they are, well, language models: conditional predictors of tokens). Are they models of language (yes: Piantadosi (2023), no: Kodner et al. (2023),Birhane and McGann (2024), inter alia)? Are they “stochastic parrots” Bender et al. (2021)? Are they models of human language use Andreas (2022); of human reason (or maybe just reasoning, Huang and Chang (2023)); of intelligence “in general” Bubeck et al. (2023)? It is the goal of this paper to propose a “least commitment” metaphor—LLMs as function approximators—and to explore how this could help structure current debates. What this means will be explained in the coming sections.333This paper claims no novelty for the observation that LLMs can be framed as function approximators. It is implicit in the approaches to their evaluation that use language tasks (i.e., particular kinds of functions), as cited above. It is very much explicit (if not quite formalised as below) in attempts to make use of LLMs to actually implement functions in programs, such as DSPy Khattab et al. (2023) and langchain (https://www.langchain.com).
2 LLMs as Function Approximators
On the technical level, an LLM is a function from a sequence of tokens to a distribution over a token vocabulary—i.e., it is still a language model Manning and Schütze (1999). Given a method for sampling from the distribution and extending generated sequences (finitely, eventually stopping), an LLM can be seen as a function from a sequence of tokens to a sequence of tokens. Where it becomes interesting is when the semantic relationship between the input and output sequence is taken into view. Various recently developed techniques (e.g., framing of tasks as question/answer pairs, instruction tuning, response preference alignment via supervision on full responses; McCann et al. (2018); Stiennon et al. (2020); Ouyang et al. (2022), inter alia) together with sheer scaling of training data and model sizes Kaplan et al. (2020) have brought these models to a state where the relation between input sequence and output sequence can usefully be understood as one between a stimulus and a response, rather than (just) as one between a text and its continuation. And to the extent that such a relationship is stable (both “write a limerick about CPUs” and “write a limerick about LLMs” results in texts that resemble limericks, with the respective topics), therein lies the approximation of a function (here, “write a limerick about X”) that is our concern in this paper.
2.1 Finding the Function
What is peculiar about this functional relationship is that the function does not need to be learned specifically by the model, at least not in the heretofore common sense. Rather, the function needs to be found in the vast and “latent” space that is opened by the encompassing “sequence to sequence” function that is the LLM.444Alternatively, you can think of what is happening here as induction of the function based on the prompt. The proposal here is meant to be agnostic as to what the process is; in fact, it is meant to provide a clear way of talking about what the issue here is (finding / retrieving vs. inducing). Techniques for doing so have been suggested from the time when this property was first observed Brown et al. (2020) and are by now somewhat better understood, or at least catalogued Schulhoff et al. (2024). The following is not meant as advice on formulating prompts (which is what the textual means for what we analyse here as function induction are now commonly called); it is meant as a proposal for naming the informational components present in such prompts.555Following the distinction between intensional and extensional task description I introduced in Schlangen (2021).
Definition 1
A prompt is defined by the following components: , where
-
•
is the intensional task description (e.g., “translate English to French”). This description can contain specific formatting instructions that constrain the output (“prefix your response with translation:”);
-
•
the are example pairs of input and output, together forming an extensional task description (; e.g., “English: sea otter \n French: loutre de mer”).
The pairs can be augmented with a textual evaluation like “more succint than this”; this is meant to capture the information provided by multi-turn rounds of advancing towards a desired result. -
•
finally is the target instance for the given task prompt, such as for example the phrase that is to be translated.
The task description () contains at least one of and ; a prompt contains at least one of and target instance .
Definition 2
Given a function that samples a response from a model given a prompt , we can then define the prompt-induced function via abstraction of the specific target instance:
Where relevant, we will make a distinction between , the prompt-induced function, and , the intended function meant to be described by by the author of the description.
Note that in practical applications, additional steps might be undertaken such as sanitisation of in- and output (e.g., Rebedea et al. (2023)), parsing of the output (and e.g. ignoring “chain of thought” steps in the output Chu et al. (2024)), or using the model output to trigger an API call, and taking the output of that as the function value, as in so-called “tool use” Wang et al. (2024). All of this can easily be represented in this formalisation as function composition, but in any case does not change materially what the underlying functional relationship is and where it is coming from.
2.2 A Taxonomy of Function Types
We can now categorise prompt-induced functions (or, equivalently, the task that a given prompt is meant to pose to the model) according to the type of semantic relation between domain and co-domain; that is, between the and the corresponding , yielding a distinction between:
-
•
transformation tasks, where the information that is contained in is also contained in (that is, entails ). E.g., summarisation, translation, paraphrasing.
-
•
categorisation tasks, where is a category (typically, out of a small set of candidates) into which falls.
-
•
additive tasks, where contains information not entailed by . This can be further classified into
- recall-additive, where the additional information is based on “recalled” information from the training data (and is assumed to be factually true); e.g., where is meant to be an answer to a factual question ; and
- creative-additive, where the additional information in is not (necessarily) meant to have been encountered in the training data (but is still based in some sense on ). If is meant to fulfil certain constraints (e.g., be executable code), we can call this grounded creative-additive; if not, free creative-additive (e.g., generation of a story based on the prompt).
The boundaries between these classes are not necessarily sharp—for example, one might want to understand the “text to code” task as a form of translation (and hence, as a transformation task), if the text is very specific; or as grounded creative-additive, if it is more abstract—but the taxonomy shall suffice to discuss some differences between tasks in the section below. Finally, some tasks, like for example summarisation, are of course better modelled as a mapping from a source text into a set of summaries (or, even better, a fuzzy set / a pair of text + indicator of task-based goodness, interpretable as degree of set membership). Our concern here, however, is not with modelling all cases in all details; it is with framing the discussion, for which these details can remain unresolved for now.
2.3 Some Examples
![Refer to caption](x1.png)
To make the above a bit more concrete, we now go through three example use cases of LLMs and show how they would be described using the terminology introduced above. The first that we will look at, evaluation using HELM Liang et al. (2023), maps rather directly onto our terminology. In order to use (test splits of) existing datasets, the authors define prompt templates that “explain the task” to the model, and then insert the actual instance into this template. Figure 1 shows the example they give for a multiple-choice dataset. We can see that what they label task instruction corresponds closely to our intensional task description. (Although as such a better formulation would be something like: “of the given answer options, select the correct one for the given question about anatomy”.) What is labelled train input / reference / output in the example then corresponds to our , and the test input / reference to our . We also note that the paper discusses various metrics, making distinctions roughly along the lines of our task taxonomy from the previous section.
Turn 1 | Provide insights into the correlation between economic indicators such as GDP, inflation, and unemployment rates. Explain how fiscal and monetary policies affect those indicators. |
---|---|
Mapping |
itd: explain this topic from the field of economics
: the correlation between [...] taking into account [...] policies |
Turn 2 | Now, explain them again like I’m five. |
Mapping |
itd: (as above) + on a level appropriate for a 5-year old
: as in turn 1 together with previous response, plus evaluation : this is not on a level appropriate for a 5-year old : as before |
In the previous example, LLMs were purposely made to act like previous types of machine learning model, in order to evaluate them in much the same way as those were evaluated (performance on test set). Figure 2 shows how the proposed analysis can also be applied to the type of interactions often found in interactive use with an LLM-“chatbot”. The aim of the user here is less to find a function for re-use and more to find a formulation that solves one given task; but still the process can be usefully seen as an attempt to induce, via several steps, the desired mapping.
Lastly, we just point out that the so-called system prompt often used in systems aimed at chit chat (see example in the Appendix) can be understood as (part of) the intensional task description constraining the general “reply appropriately to the context”-function that drives the ‘conversation’ forwards.
This brief discussion was meant to illustrate the concepts introduced in the previous sections. Their real worth needs to show in how they bring out commonalities in different questions one can ask about LLM use. To do this is the task of the next section.
3 Questions for the Evaluation of Function Approximators
![Refer to caption](x2.png)
Figure 3 illustrates the function approximator metaphor. We can use it to describe what a genuinely Universal Function Approximator (UFA) would look like:
Any desirable function can be found through a natural task description (that is, one that an informed layperson can come up with, and which does not need to be ‘tuned’ to idiosyncrasies of the model);
the function behaves well even for extreme targets , regardless of what the training material of the underlying model was;
is protected against that are outside of its intended domain (including adversarial ones that contain a different task description meant to “jump outside of” );
does not produce output that is ‘undesirable’, even if it would be in ;
finally, the finding process is stable against semantically irrelevant variations in the formulation of the task description.
Such UFAs do not currently exists. We can explore the ways in which current models are lacking from different perspectives, using the concepts introduced here. We can look at the the behaviour of the approximated function itself (and how it relates to , the intended function); this is labelled below. We can look at the induction process that goes from td to ; labelled below. Finally, we can look at the coverage of ; labelled F below. We can do all of this from a practical perspective (and within that, from the sub-perspective of someone designing a feature with a fixed set of functions, or of someone aiming to expose the generality for example in a chatbot-like interface; both labelled p below) or from a more theoretical perspective aimed at understanding the model capabilities in general (label: t).666 Note that the following is not intended to completely cover the space of possible evaluation questions, and is also not intended as a literature review. Few or possibly even none of the questions below is novel, and there is much work on some of them that is not going to be mentioned here. The point simply is to illustrate how the ‘function approximation’ framing connects these questions.
3.1 Focus on the Prompt-Induced Function
f,p: How closely does approximate ? This is the most basic question that we used to ask of machine learned models, and it can be explored with the usual instruments: a test set of mappings, and a metric for comparing predicted values to these reference values. The nature of this metric will likely differ significantly depending on the task type as described above in Section 2.2. This is what the paradigm of reference-based evaluation, represented above by HELM, addresses.
There are also new types of questions, however, owing to the fact that the function is approximated without additional (weight-based) learning:
f,p: How well is protected against so-called “prompt-injection” attacks Schulhoff et al. (2023), where the (coming from a user) contains text that might be understood as being part of, or even replacing, the , turning the function into a function outside of the control of the feature designer. Related to this, but not quite identical, are questions of how well the domain and co-domain of the function is protected against undesirable in- and outputs (e.g., a ‘give me instructions for doing x’ function, where this by design is meant to only respond to activities deemed appropriate for a certain user group; or, on the output side, avoiding certain types of language in additive tasks).
f,t: What is the relation of to the training set of the underlying model? Is the resulting function best understood as an interpolation between similar examples seen in during training (or even memorisation), or is it genuine extrapolation / generalisation? Related to this, what would make an observer grant “understanding” or “intelligence” to the induced function? E.g., if the function is of the complexity of the example in Figure 1, and performs well on a test set, is that evidence that the question text is understood? That the examined medical knowledge is understood? (We will come back to this type of question.)
f,t: What force does the application of a function have? If the function is something like “produce an answer to the question”, what is the status of the generated text? When or how would it get assertoric force?777 Some appear to believe that this is question of overall retrieval accuracy (e.g., inter alia, Heinzerling and Inui (2021)), or that simple disclaimers (“AI models can make up facts; check everything yourself”) can leave this status unclear; I think that is wrong Schlangen (2022, 2023b). In any case, this is an issue worth being discussed more explicitly.
3.2 Focus on the Induction Process
i,p: How natural can the be? How stable is what is being induced against semantically insignificant variations in how is formulated? That current models are not doing particularly well here is the whole raison d’être of tools like DSPy Khattab et al. (2023); how they do is now beginning to be investigated systematically Lu et al. (2024). This is also one of the factors that the paradigm of preference-based evaluation, represented above by Chatbot Arena, likely captures, in that the relative ease with which a task is described should figure in the user’s relative preference.
i,p: Related to the previous question is the question of whether functions induced through intuitively similar task descriptions (e.g., “summarize this news article from the domain of sports” / “…from the domain of entertainment”) can be prompt-induced similarly.
i,p: How important are the formatting instructions for recovering the answer in the model response ? There is a lot of informal knowledge about how best to get models to produce responses from which a desired answer format can easily be extracted (e.g., by asking for structured output instead of free text); what is the influence of decisions made here Yu et al. (2024)?
i,t: How is the process that goes from to best described – as induction or as retrieval? Is that process even a uniform one (always induction, or always retrieval), or does its nature depend on contextual factors? (This is related to the question about generalisation vs. memorisation above, but gets at the issue from a different perspective.) Datasets like ARC Chollet (2019) are designed to probe this question; current models are not faring well.888 https://arcprize.org/leaderboard
3.3 Focus on the Space of Functions
F,p: Continuing with a theme from above, another potentially desirable feature is to be able to block certain functions from being reachable via (user) prompt at all; this is particularly relevant if the generality of the model is exposed to users (as in a chatbot-style interface). As discussed above, one way this is currently achieved is by formulating lengthy ‘system prompts’ (see Section A below).
F,p: Do models perform similarly on similar tasks? This is related to the induction question above, but here getting at it from the perspective of how “evenly” the space of functions is covered. From a practical perspective, this kind of homogeneity helps with forming a mental model of which feature should work, and how well. From a theoretical perspective, this leads over to the next question.
F,t: What is the relation between tasks that can successfully be prompt-induced (in the sense that they perform well; let us call this set ) and tasks that humans can do? What is the relation between performance differences shown by models and by humans? Imagine that a model performs equally well (measured via reference-based evaluation) on the function ‘answer this maths question targeted at 10 year old students’ and the function ‘answer this maths question targeted at 17 year old students’—what would that tell us about the likely underlying mechanism with which the model answers these questions? This line of inquiry brings us to questions of the construct validity of tests, insofar as they meant to support statements about general abilities of models Raji et al. (2021); Schlangen (2023a), and hence to the heart of the question about the (artificial) ‘intelligence’ of these function approximators.
This is by no means a complete list of questions that can be reformulated within this framing. It shall suffice for now to demonstrate the productivity of the metaphor.
4 Conclusions
This paper has been an attempt at taking a relatively salient understanding of what LLMs are, or can be seen as—namely, function approximators—and trying to offer a precise formalisation of this idea, and to play through what this framing means for questions of evaluating these models, along practical and theoretical dimensions. It has shown that the framing can bring out a common aim behind what otherwise looks like very disparate threads of research that are united only by their subject (LLMs): to understand, and improve, the model’s ability to approximate (desirable) functions. It is a “least commitment” metaphor insofar as it demands only the acceptance of the utility of one level of analysis above “LLMs as text completers”, which is that there is or can be a semantic relationship between input and output of the model, while hopefully enabling discussions about whether additional levels of analysis can be grounded by it, or not.
References
- Andreas (2022) Jacob Andreas. 2022. Language models as agent models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 5769–5779, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Bender et al. (2021) Emily M. Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. 2021. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’21, page 610–623, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.
- Birhane and McGann (2024) Abeba Birhane and Marek McGann. 2024. Large models of what? mistaking engineering achievements for human linguistic agency. Preprint, arXiv:2407.08790.
- Brown et al. (2020) Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877–1901. Curran Associates, Inc.
- Bubeck et al. (2023) Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Yi Zhang. 2023. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4. Preprint, arXiv:2303.12712.
- Chiang et al. (2024) Wei-Lin Chiang, Lianmin Zheng, Ying Sheng, Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos, Tianle Li, Dacheng Li, Hao Zhang, Banghua Zhu, Michael I. Jordan, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. 2024. Chatbot arena: An open platform for evaluating llms by human preference. CoRR, abs/2403.04132.
- Chollet (2019) François Chollet. 2019. On the Measure of Intelligence. arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1911.01547.
- Chu et al. (2024) Zheng Chu, Jingchang Chen, Qianglong Chen, Weijiang Yu, Tao He, Haotian Wang, Weihua Peng, Ming Liu, Bing Qin, and Ting Liu. 2024. Navigate through enigmatic labyrinth – a survey of chain of thought reasoning: Advances, frontiers and future. Preprint, arXiv:2309.15402.
- Heinzerling and Inui (2021) Benjamin Heinzerling and Kentaro Inui. 2021. Language models as knowledge bases: On entity representations, storage capacity, and paraphrased queries. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 1772–1791, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Hendrycks et al. (2021) Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2021). OpenReview.net.
- Huang and Chang (2023) Jie Huang and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. 2023. Towards reasoning in large language models: A survey. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 1049–1065, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Kaplan et al. (2020) Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Scaling laws for neural language models. CoRR, abs/2001.08361.
- Khattab et al. (2023) Omar Khattab, Arnav Singhvi, Paridhi Maheshwari, Zhiyuan Zhang, Keshav Santhanam, Sri Vardhamanan, Saiful Haq, Ashutosh Sharma, Thomas T. Joshi, Hanna Moazam, Heather Miller, Matei Zaharia, and Christopher Potts. 2023. Dspy: Compiling declarative language model calls into self-improving pipelines. CoRR, abs/2310.03714.
- Kodner et al. (2023) Jordan Kodner, Sarah Payne, and Jeffrey Heinz. 2023. Why linguistics will thrive in the 21st century: A reply to piantadosi (2023). Preprint, arXiv:2308.03228.
- Kuhn (1962) Thomas S. Kuhn. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
- Liang et al. (2023) Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Kumar, Benjamin Newman, Binhang Yuan, Bobby Yan, Ce Zhang, Christian Alexander Cosgrove, Christopher D Manning, Christopher Re, Diana Acosta-Navas, Drew Arad Hudson, Eric Zelikman, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Frieda Rong, Hongyu Ren, Huaxiu Yao, Jue WANG, Keshav Santhanam, Laurel Orr, Lucia Zheng, Mert Yuksekgonul, Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Kim, Neel Guha, Niladri S. Chatterji, Omar Khattab, Peter Henderson, Qian Huang, Ryan Andrew Chi, Sang Michael Xie, Shibani Santurkar, Surya Ganguli, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Thomas Icard, Tianyi Zhang, Vishrav Chaudhary, William Wang, Xuechen Li, Yifan Mai, Yuhui Zhang, and Yuta Koreeda. 2023. Holistic evaluation of language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research. Featured Certification, Expert Certification.
- Lu et al. (2024) Sheng Lu, Hendrik Schuff, and Iryna Gurevych. 2024. How are prompts different in terms of sensitivity? In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5833–5856, Mexico City, Mexico. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Manning and Schütze (1999) Christopher D. Manning and Hinrich Schütze. 1999. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
- McCann et al. (2018) Bryan McCann, Nitish Shirish Keskar, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2018. The natural language decathlon: Multitask learning as question answering. Preprint, arXiv:1806.08730.
- OpenAI (2023) OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. Preprint, arXiv:2303.08774.
- Ouyang et al. (2022) Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. CoRR, abs/2203.02155.
- Piantadosi (2023) Steven T. Piantadosi. 2023. Modern language models refute chomsky’s approach to language.
- Raji et al. (2021) Deborah Raji, Emily Denton, Emily M. Bender, Alex Hanna, and Amandalynne Paullada. 2021. Ai and the everything in the whole wide world benchmark. In Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks, volume 1. Curran.
- Rebedea et al. (2023) Traian Rebedea, Razvan Dinu, Makesh Narsimhan Sreedhar, Christopher Parisien, and Jonathan Cohen. 2023. NeMo guardrails: A toolkit for controllable and safe LLM applications with programmable rails. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 431–445, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Schlangen (2021) David Schlangen. 2021. Targeting the benchmark: On methodology in current natural language processing research. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 670–674, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Schlangen (2022) David Schlangen. 2022. Norm participation grounds language. In Proceedings of the 2022 CLASP Conference on (Dis)embodiment, pages 62–69, Gothenburg, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Schlangen (2023a) David Schlangen. 2023a. Dialogue games for benchmarking language understanding: Motivation, taxonomy, strategy. CoRR, abs/2304.07007.
- Schlangen (2023b) David Schlangen. 2023b. On general language understanding. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 8818–8825, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Schulhoff et al. (2024) Sander Schulhoff, Michael Ilie, Nishant Balepur, Konstantine Kahadze, Amanda Liu, Chenglei Si, Yinheng Li, Aayush Gupta, HyoJung Han, Sevien Schulhoff, Pranav Sandeep Dulepet, Saurav Vidyadhara, Dayeon Ki, Sweta Agrawal, Chau Pham, Gerson Kroiz, Feileen Li, Hudson Tao, Ashay Srivastava, Hevander Da Costa, Saloni Gupta, Megan L. Rogers, Inna Goncearenco, Giuseppe Sarli, Igor Galynker, Denis Peskoff, Marine Carpuat, Jules White, Shyamal Anadkat, Alexander Hoyle, and Philip Resnik. 2024. The prompt report: A systematic survey of prompting techniques. Preprint, arXiv:2406.06608.
- Schulhoff et al. (2023) Sander Schulhoff, Jeremy Pinto, Anaum Khan, Louis-François Bouchard, Chenglei Si, Svetlina Anati, Valen Tagliabue, Anson Kost, Christopher Carnahan, and Jordan Boyd-Graber. 2023. Ignore this title and HackAPrompt: Exposing systemic vulnerabilities of LLMs through a global prompt hacking competition. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4945–4977, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Srivastava et al. (2022) Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R. Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, Agnieszka Kluska, Aitor Lewkowycz, Akshat Agarwal, Alethea Power, Alex Ray, Alex Warstadt, Alexander W. Kocurek, Ali Safaya, Ali Tazarv, Alice Xiang, Alicia Parrish, Allen Nie, Aman Hussain, Amanda Askell, Amanda Dsouza, Ameet Rahane, Anantharaman S. Iyer, Anders Andreassen, Andrea Santilli, Andreas Stuhlmüller, Andrew M. Dai, Andrew La, Andrew K. Lampinen, Andy Zou, Angela Jiang, Angelica Chen, Anh Vuong, Animesh Gupta, Anna Gottardi, Antonio Norelli, Anu Venkatesh, Arash Gholamidavoodi, Arfa Tabassum, Arul Menezes, Arun Kirubarajan, Asher Mullokandov, Ashish Sabharwal, Austin Herrick, Avia Efrat, Aykut Erdem, Ayla Karakas, and et al. 2022. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. CoRR, abs/2206.04615.
- Stiennon et al. (2020) Nisan Stiennon, Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Daniel Ziegler, Ryan Lowe, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, and Paul F Christiano. 2020. Learning to summarize with human feedback. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 3008–3021. Curran Associates, Inc.
- Wang et al. (2024) Zhiruo Wang, Zhoujun Cheng, Hao Zhu, Daniel Fried, and Graham Neubig. 2024. What are tools anyway? a survey from the language model perspective. Preprint, arXiv:2403.15452.
- Yu et al. (2024) Qingchen Yu, Zifan Zheng, Shichao Song, Zhiyu Li, Feiyu Xiong, Bo Tang, and Ding Chen. 2024. xfinder: Robust and pinpoint answer extraction for large language models. Preprint, arXiv:2405.11874.
- Zheng et al. (2023) Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric P. Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. 2023. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, December 10 - 16, 2023.
Appendix A An Example System Prompt
The following example system prompt is taken from a Microsoft guidebook for system design with LLMs.999 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ai-services/openai/concepts/system-message; retrieved 2024-07-17 It is documented here in full length to show the lengths that system designers go through with current models in order to constrain (and protect) the induced function.