text
stringlengths 0
89.3k
|
|---|
paradigm is that it requires more training data extensive com |
putational resources and longer training times compared to |
the IFT paradigm Additionally if the data used for continued |
pretraining is irrelevant or significantly different from the |
instruction finetuning tasks the model may learn irrelevant |
information which can degrade performance on downstream |
tasks |
1 Model Merging Model fusion refers to the merging of |
two or more models in order to improve the generalization |
performance of the model without additional training Most |
methods focus on fusing model parameters BioMistral merges |
the pretrained medical LLMs with the base model using three |
methods TIES DARE and SLERP for weight merging |
respectively to improve the general domain capabilities of |
the medical LLMs Apollo 54 uses Proxy Tuning 124 to |
indirectly guide the adjustment of general LLMs with a largenumber of parameters by utilizing the logits outputs of the |
prefinetuning model without medical knowledge injected |
and the finetuned model with medical knowledge injected |
Experimental findings indicate that proxy tuning enhances |
the models performance on multiple language benchmarks |
beyond the English benchmark |
2 Combining Pretraining Data with Instruction Data |
Incorporating pretraining data into instruction finetuning by |
converting pretraining data into the format of instruction data |
and jointly training it with other instruction data enhances |
the effectiveness and stability of training 20 Building upon |
this concept HuatuoGPTII 45 transforms its pretrained |
medical data into an instruction format creating a pretrained |
instruction dataset This dataset is then jointly trained with |
existing instruction data Additionally it proposes a priority |
sampling strategy to mitigate the challenges associated with |
mixing data sources during LLM training Similarly Apollo |
54 rewrites the pretraining corpus into the data format of QA |
and adopts the same data mixing and sampling techniques as |
HuatuoGPTII This approach facilitates a smoother transition |
from continued pretraining to instruction finetuning |
C IFTHA |
The IFTHA paradigm adopts a twostage approach In the |
first stage instruction finetuning is employed to augment the |
LLMs ability to follow medical instructions and engage in |
medical dialogue Subsequently the second stage focuses on |
human alignment ensuring the LLMs responses adhere to |
established medical alignment principles In general domain |
human alignment aims to ensure that LLMs operate in accor |
dance with human values genuine intentions and established |
social ethics The main alignment principles are helpful |
honest and harmless Within the medical domain these core |
principles are further extended to encompass patientFridendly |
and DoctorLike professional and interactive diagnostic 8 |
To achieve human alignment in the medical domain a |
prevalent approach involves Reinforcement Learning from |
Human Feedback RLHF 14 This methodology entails a |
twostage process Initially a reward model is constructed |
on top of an instruction finetuned medical LLM utilizing |
manually labeled human preference data Subsequently this |
reward model is combined with either PPO 125 or Rejection |
Sampling strategies 101 to perform reinforcement learning |
training thereby aligning medical LLMs with predetermined |
principles Considering the difficulty of collecting human |
preference data HuatuoGPT motivated by RLHF and RLAIF |
126 proposes Reinforcement Learning with Mixed Feedback |
RLMF RLMF leverages ChatGPT to generate a portion ofJOURNAL OF L ATEX CLASS FILES VOL 14 NO 8 AUGUST 2021 13 |
the human preference data effectively merging the strengths |
of ChatGPT and real doctors Consequently medical LLMs |
are guided to align responses with both ChatGPT and medical |
expertise QilinMed 41 adopts Direct Preference Optimiza |
tion DPO 127 a nonreinforcement learning approach |
to accomplish human alignment training for medical LLMs |
Unlike reinforcement learning methods that rely on reward |
modeling DPO directly establishes the connection between |
the decision function and the reward function obviating the |
need for explicit reward modeling |
Currently human alignment training is built on models that |
have undergone instruction finetuning The IFTHA paradigm |
offers several advantages medical LLMs exhibit enhanced |
instruction following capabilities yielding more accurate re |
sponses to user queries and physician instructions Addition |
ally IFTHA fosters alignment with human values promoting |
the provision of accurate and reliable medical information |
clear explanations and the avoidance of harmful sugges |
tions while safeguarding user privacy However the IFTHA |
paradigm presents challenges The human alignment train |
ing process is intricate susceptible to instability and highly |
sensitive to hyperparameter selection Furthermore RLHF is |
highly dependent on the performance of the reward model |
which in turn is dependent on the quality of the expensive |
human preference data Consequently developers opting for |
this paradigm need substantial engineering experience |
D CPIFTHA |
The CPIFTHA paradigm injects medical knowledge at |
different dimensions into the general LLM from three stages |
continued pretraining instruction finetuning and human align |
ment Due to the complexity of training and large compu |
tational resources required for this paradigm only a few |
medical LLM efforts have adopted this paradigm However |
the medical knowledge comprehension medical instruction |
following and human preference abilities of medical LLMs |
are improved compared to other paradigms |
Compared to the CPIFT paradigm the paradigm intro |
duces the human alignment phase This enhancement empow |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.