Large language models (LLMs) are powerful dialogue agents, but specializing them towards fulfilling a specific function can be challenging. Instructing tuning, i.e. tuning models on instruction and sample responses generated by humans (Ouyang et al., 2022), has proven as an effective method to do so, yet requires a number of data samples that a) might not be available or b) costly to generate. Furthermore, this cost increases when the goal is to make the LLM follow a specific workflow within a dialogue instead of single instructions. Inspired by the self-play technique in reinforcement learning and the use of LLMs to simulate human agents, we propose a more effective method for data collection through LLMs engaging in a conversation in various roles. This approach generates a training data via “self-talk” of LLMs that can be refined and utilized for supervised fine-tuning. We introduce an automated way to measure the (partial) success of a dialogue. This metric is used to filter the generated conversational data that is fed back in LLM for training. Based on our automated and human evaluations of conversation quality, we demonstrate that such self-talk data improves results. In addition, we examine the various characteristics that showcase the quality of generated dialogues and how they can be connected to their potential utility as training data.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for generating code solutions, empowered by features like self-debugging and self-reflection. However, LLMs often struggle with complex programming problems without human guidance. This paper investigates the strategies employed by expert programmers to steer code-generating LLMs toward successful outcomes. Through a study involving experts using natural language to guide GPT-4, Gemini Ultra, and, Claude 3.5 Sonnet on highly difficult programming challenges, we frame our analysis using the “Socratic Feedback” paradigm for understanding effective steering strategies. By analyzing 30 conversational transcripts across all three models, we map observed feedback strategies to five stages of Socratic Questioning: Definition, Elenhus, Maieutic, Dialectic, and Counter-factual reasoning. We find evidence that by employing a combination of different Socratic feedback strategies across multiple turns, programmers successfully guided the models to solve 74% of the problems that the models initially failed to solve on their own.

A particularly successful class of approaches for few-shot learning combines language models with prompts - hand-crafted task descriptions that complement data samples. However, designing prompts by hand for each task commonly requires domain knowledge and substantial guesswork. We observe, in the context of classification tasks, that instruction finetuned language models are remarkably robust towards some dimensions of a prompt’s design. We subsequently propose a simple method to eliminate the need for handcrafted prompts, named AuT-Few. This approach consists of (i) a prompt retrieval module that selects suitable task instructions from the instruction-tuning knowledge base, and (ii) the generation of two distinct, semantically meaningful, class descriptions and a selection mechanism via cross-validation. Over 12 datasets, spanning 8 classification tasks, we show that AuT-Few outperforms current state-of-the-art few-shot learning methods. Moreover, AuT-Few is the best ranking method across datasets on the RAFT few-shot benchmark. Notably, these results are achieved without task-specific handcrafted prompts on unseen tasks.