TarGEN: Targeted Data Generation with Large Language Models

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has sparked interest in data synthesis techniques, aiming to generate diverse and high-quality synthetic datasets. However, these synthetic datasets often suffer from a lack of diversity and added noise. In this paper, we present TarGEN, a multi-step prompting strategy for generating high-quality synthetic datasets utilizing a LLM. An advantage of TarGEN is its seedless nature; it does not require specific task instances, broadening its applicability beyond task replication. We augment TarGEN with a method known as self-correction empowering LLMs to rectify inaccurately labeled instances during dataset creation, ensuring reliable labels. To assess our technique's effectiveness, we emulate 8 tasks from the SuperGLUE benchmark and finetune various language models, including encoder-only, encoder-decoder, and decoder-only models on both synthetic and original training sets. Evaluation on the original test set reveals that models trained on datasets generated by TarGEN perform approximately 1-2% points better than those trained on original datasets (82.84% via syn. vs. 81.12% on og. using Flan-T5). When incorporating instruction tuning, the performance increases to 84.54% on synthetic data vs. 81.49% on original data by Flan-T5. A comprehensive analysis of the synthetic dataset compared to the original dataset reveals that the synthetic dataset demonstrates similar or higher levels of dataset complexity and diversity. Furthermore, the synthetic dataset displays a bias level that aligns closely with the original dataset. Finally, when pre-finetuned on our synthetic SuperGLUE dataset, T5-3B yields impressive results on the OpenLLM leaderboard, surpassing the model trained on the Self-Instruct dataset by 4.14% points. We hope that TarGEN can be helpful for quality data generation and reducing the human efforts to create complex benchmarks.

Paper

References (61)

Scroll for more · 38 remaining

Similar papers

Reviewer oq9P6/10 · confidence 3/52024-05-08

Summary

The paper introduces TarGEN, a novel framework for generating high-quality, synthetic datasets using large language models (LLMs) without relying on existing data instances. TarGEN utilizes a multi-step prompting strategy that aims to inject semantic diversity and ensure precise label alignment through a label-constrained generation process. This strategy includes initializing contextual diversity, generating task-specific instance seeds, and employing a self-correction module to enhance label accuracy. The authors test TarGEN by emulating tasks from the SuperGLUE benchmark and training various models on these synthetic datasets. The results demonstrate that models trained on TarGEN-generated datasets generally outperform those trained on original datasets, with improvements noted across different model architectures.

Rating

6

Confidence

3

Ethics flag

1

Reasons to accept

1. The proposed TarGEN does not require pre-existing data for specific tasks, making it versatile for generating datasets across a wide range of domains and tasks, including novel or specialized tasks that lack substantial existing datasets. This flexibility is particularly valuable in the rapidly evolving field of AI, where new tasks and requirements emerge frequently. 2. The incorporation of a self-correction module within TarGEN reduces label noise, ensuring that the synthetic data is not only high in quantity but also in quality. This approach leads to more reliable training data, which is critical for developing robust and accurate models.

Reasons to reject

1. The performance improvements attributed to TarGEN could be heavily reliant on sophisticated, handcrafted prompt engineering. While the paper suggests that the framework is adaptable across tasks, the extent to which performance is dependent on the skillful design of prompts and the labor-intensive process of configuring these prompts for different tasks should be more transparently addressed. 2. The most significant concern is the lack of extensive comparative analysis with other existing algorithms and an ablation study of the 'label-constrained generation' facilitated by 'diverse seeds.' The paper would benefit from a deeper exploration of how each component of the TarGEN methodology contributes to the overall performance improvements.

Reviewer b77X7/10 · confidence 4/52024-05-10

Summary

The authors propose TarGEN, a multi-step dataset generation technique based on CharGPT to generate synthetic labeled datasets that can be used to evaluate the performance of NLP models. They additionally propose a self-correction module that automatically evaluate the generated labels to ensure the quality of the generated dataset. To evaluate its performance, TarGEN was used to generate a synthetic SuperGLUE dataset where different NLP models were finetuned on the synthetic SuperGLUE and the original one. The results showed that models finetuned on the generated SuperGLUE outperformed models trained on the original SuperGLUE. TarGEN also showed to perform well when compared with other synthetic data generation methods such as Self-Instruct.

Rating

7

Confidence

4

Ethics flag

1

Reasons to accept

- The paper is well-written, easy to follow, and clear. - Synthetic dataset generation is an active research that is shaping the way we evaluate the learning capabilities of LLMs. Therefore reduce the time and cost needed to manually generate new datasets. - TarGEN can be used to generate datasets for novel domain-specific tasks with no existing instances. - TarGEN has show to outperform other similar techniques such those used to generate Self-Instruct dataset.

Reasons to reject

- TarGEN only relied on ChatGPT and there was no comparison about how using a different LLM could affect the generated data.

Questions to authors

- How do you ensure consistency when generating new data using TarGEN? For example, how can TarGEN be used to generate 1000 similar labeled samples across multiple separate runs (let's say 5 runs)? - How do you enhance the diversity of the generated data? - How do you ensure that TarGEN does not generate toxic sentences?

Reviewer QmfM6/10 · confidence 3/52024-05-12

Summary

This paper proposes a method for generating synthetic data by going through a number of steps such as task description, label-constrained generation, and self-correction.

Rating

6

Confidence

3

Ethics flag

1

Reasons to accept

The strengths of the paper are as follows: Strength 1: Overall the method seems reasonable, including several steps that would likely increase the quality of the data. Strength 2: Experiments are performed over a variety of models. Strength 3: I like the fact that human evaluation is done to verify the quality of the data.

Reasons to reject

But I had several concerns about the paper in its current form: Weakness 1. The conceptual comparison with previous methods for dataset generation such as SuperGen, ZeroGen, SunGen, ProGen, and Self-Instruct is weak. It would be good to have the exact differences between these methods explained, e.g. in a table. Weakness 2. Similarly, the empirical comparison to these methods is weak. There is only one comparison with Self-Instruct, and that is through tuning on the Self-Instruct dataset, which (as far as I know) was not specifically tailored to result in omdels that are good at the tasks in SuperGlue. A more comprehensive comparison would have used Self-Instruct and the other related methods above to generate data specifically for the tasks in the SuperGlue dataset (like is done for TarGen), and demonstrate the differences caused by the proposed methodology, while keeping the task set constant. Weakness 3. There were not any ablations to elucidate the importance of each of the elements that went into TarGen. Weakness 4. The discussion of the V-usable information was unclear because (a) it was not explained exactly how v-usable information was calculated in the paper, and (b) it seems that the v-usable information actually diverges significantly from that of the original data, which seems like it is more of a problem than a positive trait.

Questions to authors

Question 1. Does ChatGPT refer to gpt-3.5-turbo? If so, please specify which model was used in the dataset generation with its model name (including version number) for better clarity and reproducibility purposes.

Reviewer BhhP8/10 · confidence 4/52024-05-18

Summary

TarGen is a seed-less data augmentation method that uses multi-step prompting along with self-correction. The seed-less nature allows it to generate new data for tasks as opposed to augmenting from seed data for a task. The self-correction module is designed to correct errors such that generated sample is relevant to the given label The steps in generation are broadly 1) Generating some task specific keywords to have a diverse set of 2) Generating some seed instances (these are still not the final input samples) 3) Generate input samples based on the seed instances and constrained by labels 4) Error correction to ensure label relevance and relabel if required

Rating

8

Confidence

4

Ethics flag

1

Reasons to accept

1) The approach is flexible and can be used for generating dataset for novel tasks 2) The authors demonstrate that training on synthetic data outperforms training on original data 3) Diversity is a key limitation in synthetic datasets, however it seems like lexical diversity is maintained

Reasons to reject

There were no solid reasons to reject, but some minor points that can be raised 1) The one main concern is that TarGen requires quite a bit of customization for each task, in terms of the instructions you provide for each step 2) The comparison with other techniques is lacking a lot, and while there may not be an apple-apple comparison (seed-less nature, requires task specific samples and so on) it would be better to compare against other techniques to bring out the performance of TarGen For instance, there are some recent prompting based approaches that can be contrasted against TarGen such as https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.00415 https://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp-main.647.pdf

Questions to authors

If instructions are varied in a step, how does that affect the overall performance in the downstream task?

Authorsrebuttal2024-06-03

Follow up to the Rebuttal

Dear Reviewer, We trust this message finds you well. We are writing to follow up on the rebuttal response we submitted in response to your feedback. We are eager to receive your insights and comments on our response. If there are any areas that you still find unclear or require further clarification, we would be more than happy to provide additional information to ensure a comprehensive understanding of our work. Your feedback is of utmost importance to us, and we greatly appreciate your time and consideration in evaluating our research. Thank you for your attention, and we look forward to hearing from you soon.

Reviewer BhhP2024-06-04

Response To Rebuttal

Dear author, Thanks for the detailed rebuttal. 1) Regarding the generalizability of the framework, like I mentioned before, the approach is flexible in the sense that it provides a rough guideline/steps in generating data for novel tasks. However, to actually apply them, a user has to experiment with prompt engineering at each step that works best for their particular task. In that sense, the generalizability is still limited. 2) Thanks for providing the table of comparison with existing approaches, however I was referring to a comparison of scores obtained with those methods. I do notice that it is presented in response to Reviewer QmfM. Adding these comparisons will certainly make your claims better. 3) Regarding the last point, on effect of instruction. I would like to explain myself better, as this is also related to point 1) here. Say for MultiRC, the following instruction is being used in the paper ``` Given a paragraph, frame a question that requires information from multiple sentences of the paragraph to be answered correctly. Then, generate a set of options. The correct answer may be a combination of one, some, or all options. Also include options that do not answer the above question. Finally, output the combination of options that form the correct answer. ``` But I decide to provide a similar instruction like the one below ``` Read the text thoroughly to understand its content and themes. Create a question that requires integrating information from multiple sentences of the text. For each question, provide four to five option sentences that might seem relevant. it is not necessary that a combination of sentences answer the question. The options should test the reader’s ability to synthesize and evaluate information from the text, not just recall facts. ``` Now two points that I had previously raised 1) Would it be fair to say that for each task and step, one has to do fair amount of prompt engineering to be able to elicit outputs for a step in Targen? 2) Given two such varied but similar instructions, how much does it affect my downstream performance?

Authorsrebuttal2024-06-06

Response to the comment

We thank the reviewer for their feedback and clarification of their concerns. To understand the effect of prompt variations on different downstream tasks, we conducted an experiment where we generated 2 additional variations of the Step 3 prompt for CommitmentBank dataset. Llama-2 7b was fine-tuned on these alternative synthetic datasets alongside our initially generated synthetic dataset and evaluated on the original test set. We use the following prompts for this experiment: Variation 1: [from paper] ``` The input contains a premise and a hypothesis. 1. If the hypothesis logically follows the premise and the hypothesis can be derived from the information in the premise, Output “entailment” 2. If the hypothesis directly contradicts information in the premise, Output “contradiction” 3. If the hypothesis is unrelated to the premise, or cannot be sufficiently proven from the information in the premise, Output “neutral” ``` Variation 2: ``` The input consists of a premise and a hypothesis. Output "neutral" if the hypothesis is either unrelated to the premise or cannot be conclusively derived from it. Output "contradiction" if the hypothesis directly opposes the information in the premise. Output "entailment" if the hypothesis logically follows from and can be deduced from the premise. ``` Variation 3: ``` The input consists of a premise and a hypothesis. If the hypothesis is directly opposed to the information in the premise, output “contradiction.” If the hypothesis logically follows from the premise and can be inferred from its information, output “entailment.” If the hypothesis is unrelated to the premise or lacks sufficient evidence from the premise, output “neutral.” ``` The results of the experiments are attached below: | Dataset | Mean CosineSimilarity | Accuracy - LLama-2 7B | | ------------------------------------- | --------------------- | --------------------- | | Synthetic with variation 1 [in paper] | 0.56 | 94.85 | | Synthetic with variation 2 | 0.42 | 93.27 | | Synthetic with variation 3 | 0.47 | 94.14 | We see from the above results that there is slight variation in the final results and similar mean cosine similarity. We would also like to highlight that the motivation behind proposing a clearly-defined, task-agnostic guiding framework such as TarGEN is to constrain the prompt generation to a series of simpler, clearly defined subtasks. The cascaded stepwise approach has the following advantage: At each step, the subtask for which we prompt the model is straightforward with very little room for misinterpretation and errors. This reduces the prompt engineering effort significantly, especially compared to the human cost of engineering a single prompt that completely and accurately models a complex task. Any prompt that adheres to the instructions for that particular step in the framework is likely to generate similar outcomes, making this framework task- and prompt- agnostic. Additionally - the constrained, straightforward nature of the task prompt at each step makes it less likely that any variance in prompt would cause a significant change in outcome, given the narrower scope of the objective at each step and the fact that the outcomes are grounded in the response to the previous step. Furthermore, any slight deviances could be attributable to the randomness inherent in inferring with LLMs, but we would not expect to see a significant difference in quality or diversity of the output samples. If there are any areas that you still find unclear or require further clarification, we would be more than happy to provide additional information to ensure a comprehensive understanding of our work. Thank you for your attention, and we look forward to hearing from you soon.

Reviewer BhhP2024-06-06

Response To Rebuttal

Dear authors, Thanks for conducting these additional experiments regarding the variability of prompts. I appreciate these efforts and believe adding them will result in a more meaningful analysis. Given the fact that you have conducted stronger baseline comparison and ablation on prompt variability, I am inclined to increase the score.

Authorsrebuttal2024-06-03

Follow up to the Rebuttal

Dear Reviewer, We trust this message finds you well. We are writing to follow up on the rebuttal response we submitted in response to your feedback. We are eager to receive your insights and comments on our response. If there are any areas that you still find unclear or require further clarification, we would be more than happy to provide additional information to ensure a comprehensive understanding of our work. Your feedback is of utmost importance to us, and we greatly appreciate your time and consideration in evaluating our research. Thank you for your attention, and we look forward to hearing from you soon.

Reviewer QmfM2024-06-04

Thank you for the response

Thank you for the response, and I think the resulting paper is significantly improved. I think a more comprehensive comparison with previous methods that further explains *why* TarGen outperforms them significantly on these tasks would further improve the paper. I have raised my rating to 6.

Authorsrebuttal2024-06-03

Follow up to the Rebuttal

Dear Reviewer, We trust this message finds you well. We are writing to follow up on the rebuttal response we submitted in response to your feedback. We are eager to receive your insights and comments on our response. If there are any areas that you still find unclear or require further clarification, we would be more than happy to provide additional information to ensure a comprehensive understanding of our work. Your feedback is of utmost importance to us, and we greatly appreciate your time and consideration in evaluating our research. Thank you for your attention, and we look forward to hearing from you soon.

Authorsrebuttal2024-06-03

Follow up to the Rebuttal

Dear Reviewer, We trust this message finds you well. We are writing to follow up on the rebuttal response we submitted in response to your feedback. We are eager to receive your insights and comments on our response. If there are any areas that you still find unclear or require further clarification, we would be more than happy to provide additional information to ensure a comprehensive understanding of our work. Your feedback is of utmost importance to us, and we greatly appreciate your time and consideration in evaluating our research. Thank you for your attention, and we look forward to hearing from you soon.

Authorsrebuttal2024-06-06

Follow up to the Rebuttal

Dear Reviewer, We hope this email finds you well. We are following up on our rebuttal response to your valuable feedback on our research. As a reminder, the deadline for rebuttal responses is tomorrow, June 6th. We would be grateful if you could share any further insights or comments you may have on our response at your earliest convenience. We truly appreciate your time and thoughtful review. Your feedback is crucial to improving our work, and we value your expertise in this field.

Reviewer b77X2024-06-04

Thanks for the detailed feedback on my concerns! Congratulations on the great work!

Program Chairsdecision2024-07-10

Decision

Accept

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC