
arXiv: 2211.14865
We view the landscape of large language models (LLMs) through the lens of the recently released BLOOM model to understand the performance of BLOOM and other decoder-only LLMs compared to BERT-style encoder-only models. We achieve this by evaluating the smaller BLOOM model variants (\textit{350m/560m} and \textit{1b3/1b7}) on several NLP benchmark datasets and popular leaderboards. We make the following observations: (1) BLOOM performance does not scale with parameter size, unlike other LLMs like GPT and BERT. Experiments fine-tuning BLOOM models show that the 560m variant performs similarly to or better than the 1b7 variant, (2) Zero-shot cross-lingual and multi-lingual fine-tuning experiments show that BLOOM is at par or worse than monolingual GPT-2 models, and (3) Toxicity analysis of prompt-based text generation using the RealToxicityPrompts dataset shows that the text generated by BLOOM is at least 17\% less toxic than GPT-2 and GPT-3 models.
FOS: Computer and information sciences, Computer Science - Computation and Language, Computation and Language (cs.CL)
FOS: Computer and information sciences, Computer Science - Computation and Language, Computation and Language (cs.CL)
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
