Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
108 lines (71 loc) · 4.96 KB

README.md

File metadata and controls

108 lines (71 loc) · 4.96 KB
Raw

ChatGPT vs. BERT

Can ChatGPT Understand Too? A Comparative Study on ChatGPT and Fine-tuned BERT. (Full report, v2) (v1)

This repository releases the evaluated sets and the outputs predicted by BERT-style models (BERT-Base/Large and RoBERTa-Base/Large) and ChatGPT, for the replication of the study.

Data and Predictions

For each task of the GLUE benchmark, we randomly sample 25 instances for each class from the dev set for evaluation, except for STS-B, where we randomly sample 50 instances from a uniform distribution. The data and its corresponding predictions can be obtained in "./data".

The task statistics and prompts are shown as follows:

image

Additionally, we also provide the script for sampling and preprocessing the data in "get_data.py". Taking the CoLA task as an example, you can resample k-instances by the following command:

python3 get_data.py --num 25 --task cola --model_pred BERT_pred_path --save_path save_data_path

Results and Findings

  1. Overall, ChatGPT attains a comparable understanding ability compared with fine-tuned BERT-base, but still underperforms the other powerful BERT-style models, such as RoBERTa-large, by a clear margin.

    Overall results on GLUE:

image

  1. ChatGPT falls short in handling paraphrase and similarity tasks. Specifically, ChatGPT performs poorly in negative paraphrase and neutral similarity samples, respectively.

    Per-class accuracy on paraphrase task (Left) and analysis on similarity task (Right):

image

  1. ChatGPT outperforms all BERT-style models on inference tasks by a large margin, indicating its impressive reasoning ability.

    Per-class accuracy on inference tasks:

image

  1. Despite its good performance on inference tasks, ChatGPT may generate some contradictory or unreasonable responses, which would be its potential limitations.

    Case of inference tasks:

image

More results with advanced prompting techniques (update on 2 Mar. 2023)

In addition to analyzing the ChatGPT itself, we also explore the complementarity of ChatGPT and some advanced prompting strategies, i.e., the standard few-shot prompting, manual few-shot chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting and zero-shot CoT prompting.

Some input/output examples:

image

The overall results of ChatGPT equipped with advanced prompting strategies:

image

Based on these results, we can further find that:

  • ChatGPT benefits from all these prompting strategies, among which the manual-CoT brings the most performance improvements.

  • The performance of in-context learning is unstable and relatively sensitive to the provided examples, especially in the 1-shot scenario.

    More detailed analysis on the 1-shot prompting:

image
  • With the help of few-shot CoT, ChatGPT achieves impressive performance improvement (up to 7.5% average score), but still fails to beat the current SOTA models, especially on some NLU tasks.

Please refer to our full report for more details.

TODO

More results of ChatGPT equipped with the following strategies:

  • Zero-shot Chain-of-Thought (before 24 Feb. 2023)
  • Few-shot Chain-of-Thought (before 24 Feb. 2023)
  • Standard few-shot In-Context Learning (before 24 Feb. 2023)

Add the few-shot results and analyses in our report:

  • update our report and release the v2 version (before 28 Feb. 2023)

Citation

If you find this work helpful, please consider citing as follows:

@article{zhong2023chat,
  title={Can ChatGPT Understand Too? A Comparative  Study on ChatGPT and Fine-tuned BERT},
  author={Zhong, Qihuang and Ding, Liang and Liu, Juhua and Du, Bo and Tao, Dacheng},
  journal={arXiv preprint},
  url={https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.10198},
  year={2023}
}