Large Language Models (LLMs) have displayed remarkable capabilities across diverse domains, but their training remains resource – and time-intensive, requiring massive computational resources and careful orchestration of training procedures. Model souping – the practice of averaging weights from multiple models of the same architecture – has emerged as a promising pre- and post-training technique that can enhance performance without expensive retraining. We observe that previous souping approaches can lead to collapse in precision-sensitive LLM capabilities. In this paper, we introduce Soup of Category Experts (SoCE), a principled approach for model souping to overcome this shortcoming. The proposed method utilizes benchmark composition to identify optimal model candidates and applies non-uniform weighted averaging to maximize performance. Contrary to previous approaches, our method leverages the observation that different clusters (or categories) of points within a benchmark often exhibit low inter-correlations in model performance. SoCE identifies "expert" models for each weakly-correlated category cluster and combines them using optimized weighted averaging rather than uniform weights. We demonstrate that SoCE improves performance and robustness across multiple domains achieves state-of-the-art results on the Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard.

Teaching language models to use tools is an important milestone towards building general assistants, but remains an open problem. While there has been significant progress on learning to use specific tools via fine-tuning, language models still struggle with learning how to robustly use new tools from only a few demonstrations. In this work we introduce a self-verification method which distinguishes between close candidates by self-asking contrastive questions during (1) tool selection; and parameter generation. We construct synthetic, high-quality, self-generated data for this goal using Llama-2 70B, which we intend to release publicly. Extensive experiments on 4 tasks from the ToolBench benchmark, consisting of 17 unseen tools, demonstrate an average improvement of 22% over few-shot baselines, even in scenarios where the distinctions between candidate tools are finely nuanced.

Generation of plausible yet incorrect factual information, termed hallucination, is an unsolved issue in large language models. We study the ability of language models to deliberate on the responses they give in order to correct their mistakes. We develop the Chain-of-Verification (CoVe) method whereby the model first (i) drafts an initial response; then (ii) plans verification questions to fact-check its draft; (iii) answers those questions independently so the answers are not biased by other responses; and (iv) generates its final verified response. In experiments, we show CoVe decreases hallucinations across a variety of tasks, from list-based questions from Wikidata, closed book MultiSpanQA and longform text generation.