Despite the state-of-the-art performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) achieved on many tasks, their massive scale often leads to high computational and environmental costs, limiting their accessibility. Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) methods address this challenge by reducing the number of trainable parameters while maintaining strong downstream performance. Despite the advances in PEFT methods, current evaluations remain limited (in terms of evaluated models and datasets) and difficult to reproduce. To bridge this gap, we introduce PEFT-Bench, a unified end-to-end benchmark for evaluating diverse PEFT methods on autoregressive LLMs. We demonstrate its usage across 27 NLP datasets and 7 PEFT methods. To account for different PEFT training and inference factors, we also introduce the PEFT Soft Cost Penalties (PSCP) metric, which takes trainable parameters, inference speed, and training memory usage into account.

LLMs are powerful generators of synthetic data, which are used for training smaller, specific models. This is especially valuable for low-resource languages, where human-labelled data is scarce but LLMs can still produce high-quality text. However, LLMs differ in how useful their outputs are for training. Selecting the best LLM as a generator is challenging because extrinsic evaluation requires costly human annotations (which are often unavailable for low-resource languages), while intrinsic metrics correlate poorly with downstream performance. We introduce Round-robin Synthetic data Evaluation (RoSE), a proxy metric for selecting the best LLM generator without human test sets. RoSE trains a small model on the outputs of a candidate generator (LLM) and then evaluates it on generated synthetic examples from all other candidate LLMs. The final RoSE score is the mean performance of this small model. Across six LLMs, eleven languages, and three tasks (sentiment, topic, intent), RoSE identifies the optimal generator more often than any other intrinsic heuristics. RoSE outperforms intrinsic heuristics and comes within 0.76 percentage points of the optimal generator baseline. This result is measured in terms of downstream performance, obtained by training a small model on the chosen generator’s outputs (optimal vs. proxy-metric–selected) and evaluating it on human-labelled test data. Additionally, RoSE is the only metric to achieve a positive correlation with performance on human test data.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable multilingual capabilities, making them promising tools in both high- and low-resource languages. One particularly valuable use case is generating synthetic samples that can be used to train smaller models in low-resource scenarios where human-labelled data is scarce. In this work, we investigate whether these synthetic data generation capabilities can serve as a form of distillation, producing smaller models that perform on par with or even better than massive LLMs across languages and tasks. To this end, we use a state-of-the-art multilingual LLM to generate synthetic datasets covering 11 languages and 4 classification tasks. These datasets are then used to train smaller models via fine-tuning or instruction tuning, or as synthetic in-context examples for compact LLMs. Our experiments show that even small amounts of synthetic data enable smaller models to outperform the large generator itself, particularly in low-resource languages. Overall, the results suggest that LLMs are best utilised as generators (teachers) rather than classifiers, producing data that empowers smaller and more efficient multilingual models.

When solving NLP tasks with limited labelled data, researchers typically either use a general large language model without further update, or use a small number of labelled samples to tune a specialised smaller model. In this work, we answer an important question – how many labelled samples are required for the specialised small models to outperform general large models, while taking the performance variance into consideration. By observing the behaviour of fine-tuning, instruction-tuning, prompting and in-context learning on 8 language models, we identify such performance break-even points across 8 representative text classification tasks of varying characteristics. We show that the specialised models often need only few samples (on average 100) to be on par or better than the general ones. At the same time, the number of required labels strongly depends on the dataset or task characteristics, with fine-tuning on binary datasets requiring significantly more samples. When performance variance is taken into consideration, the number of required labels increases on average by 100 - 200%. Finally, larger models do not consistently lead to better performance and lower variance, with 4-bit quantisation having negligible impact.

The generative large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for data augmentation tasks, where text samples are paraphrased (or generated anew) and then used for downstream model fine-tuning. This is useful, especially for low-resource settings. For better augmentations, LLMs are prompted with examples (few-shot scenarios). Yet, the samples are mostly selected randomly, and a comprehensive overview of the effects of other (more ”informed”) sample selection strategies is lacking. In this work, we compare sample selection strategies existing in the few-shot learning literature and investigate their effects in LLM-based textual augmentation in a low-resource setting. We evaluate this on in-distribution and out-of-distribution model performance. Results indicate that while some ”informed” selection strategies increase the performance of models, especially for out-of-distribution data, it happens only seldom and with marginal performance increases. Unless further advances are made, a default of random sample selection remains a good option for augmentation practitioners.

The latest generative large language models (LLMs) have found their application in data augmentation tasks, where small numbers of text samples are LLM-paraphrased and then used to fine-tune downstream models. However, more research is needed to assess how different prompts, seed data selection strategies, filtering methods, or model settings affect the quality of paraphrased data (and downstream models). In this study, we investigate three text diversity incentive methods well established in crowdsourcing: taboo words, hints by previous outlier solutions, and chaining on previous outlier solutions. Using these incentive methods as part of instructions to LLMs augmenting text datasets, we measure their effects on generated texts’ lexical diversity and downstream model performance. We compare the effects over 5 different LLMs, 6 datasets and 2 downstream models. We show that diversity is most increased by taboo words, but downstream model performance is highest with hints.

While learning with limited labelled data can effectively deal with a lack of labels, it is also sensitive to the effects of uncontrolled randomness introduced by so-called randomness factors (i.e., non-deterministic decisions such as choice or order of samples). We propose and formalise a method to systematically investigate the effects of individual randomness factors while taking the interactions (dependence) between them into consideration. To this end, our method mitigates the effects of other factors while observing how the performance varies across multiple runs. Applying our method to multiple randomness factors across in-context learning and fine-tuning approaches on 7 representative text classification tasks and meta-learning on 3 tasks, we show that: 1) disregarding interactions between randomness factors in existing works led to inconsistent findings due to incorrect attribution of the effects of randomness factors, such as disproving the consistent sensitivity of in-context learning to sample order even with random sample selection; and 2) besides mutual interactions, the effects of randomness factors, especially sample order, are also dependent on more systematic choices unexplored in existing works, such as number of classes, samples per class or choice of prompt format.

While fine-tuning of pre-trained language models generally helps to overcome the lack of labelled training samples, it also displays model performance instability. This instability mainly originates from randomness in initialisation or data shuffling. To address this, researchers either modify the training process or augment the available samples, which typically results in increased computational costs. We propose a new mitigation strategy, called **Delayed Ensemble with Noisy Interpolation (DENI)**, that leverages the strengths of ensembling, noise regularisation and model interpolation, while retaining computational efficiency. We compare DENI with 9 representative mitigation strategies across 3 models, 4 tuning strategies and 7 text classification datasets. We show that: 1) DENI outperforms the best performing mitigation strategy (Ensemble), while using only a fraction of its cost; 2) the mitigation strategies are beneficial for parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) methods, outperforming full fine-tuning in specific cases; and 3) combining DENI with data augmentation often leads to even more effective instability mitigation.

This paper presents the best-performing solution to the SemEval 2023 Task 3 on the subtask 3 dedicated to persuasion techniques detection. Due to a high multilingual character of the input data and a large number of 23 predicted labels (causing a lack of labelled data for some language-label combinations), we opted for fine-tuning pre-trained transformer-based language models. Conducting multiple experiments, we find the best configuration, which consists of large multilingual model (XLM-RoBERTa large) trained jointly on all input data, with carefully calibrated confidence thresholds for seen and surprise languages separately. Our final system performed the best on 6 out of 9 languages (including two surprise languages) and achieved highly competitive results on the remaining three languages.