Noisy Channel Language Model Prompting for Few-Shot Text Classification

08/09/2021 ∙ by Sewon Min, et al. ∙ Facebook University of Washington 0

We introduce a noisy channel approach for language model prompting in few-shot text classification. Instead of computing the likelihood of the label given the input (referred as direct models), channel models compute the conditional probability of the input given the label, and are thereby required to explain every word in the input. We use channel models for recently proposed few-shot learning methods with no or very limited updates to the language model parameters, via either in-context demonstration or prompt tuning. Our experiments show that, for both methods, channel models significantly outperform their direct counterparts, which we attribute to their stability, i.e., lower variance and higher worst-case accuracy. We also present extensive ablations that provide recommendations for when to use channel prompt tuning instead of other competitive models (e.g., direct head tuning): channel prompt tuning is preferred when the number of training examples is small, labels in the training data are imbalanced, or generalization to unseen labels is required.



There are no comments yet.


page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4

This week in AI

Get the week's most popular data science and artificial intelligence research sent straight to your inbox every Saturday.

1 Introduction

Prompting large language models, by prepending natural language text or continuous vectors (called

prompts) to the input, has shown to be promising in few-shot learning (Brown et al., 2020). Prior work has proposed methods for finding better prompt  (Shin et al., 2020; Li and Liang, 2021; Lester et al., 2021) or better scoring of the output from the model (Zhao et al., 2021; Holtzman et al., 2021). These studies directly predict target tokens to determine the prediction for an end task. Despite promising results, they can be unstable with high variance across different verbalizers (text expression for labels) and seeds, and the worst-case performance is often close to random guessing performance (Perez et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2021).

Figure 1:

An illustration of the direct model and the channel model for language model prompting in the sentiment analysis task.

In this paper, we introduce alternative channel models for prompted few-shot text classification with large language models, inspired by noisy channel models in machine translation (Brown et al., 1993; Koehn et al., 2003; Yu et al., 2017; Yee et al., 2019) and their extensions to other tasks (Yogatama et al., 2017; Lewis and Fan, 2018). Unlike direct models that compute the conditional probability of the label token given the input, channel models compute the conditional probability of the input given the output (Figure 1). Intuitively, channel models are required to explain every word in the input, potentially amplifying training signals in the low data regime. We study the impact of channel models for language model prompting where the parameters of the language model are frozen. In particular, we compare channel models with their direct counterparts for (1) demonstration methods, either concatenation-based (Brown et al., 2020) or our proposed, ensemble-based (Section 4.1.3), and (2) prompt tuning (Lester et al., 2021).

Our experiments on eleven text classification datasets show that channel models outperform their direct counterparts by a large margin. We attribute the strong performance of channel models to their stability: they have lower variance and significantly higher worst-case accuracy then their direct counterparts over different verbalizers and seeds. We additionally find a direct model with head tuning—tuning the LM head while freezing other parameters—is surprisingly effective, often outperforming direct models with other forms of tuning. While different methods are preferred given different conditions, the channel model with prompt tuning (denoted as channel prompt tuning) significantly outperforms all direct baselines when (1) the training data is imbalanced, or (2) generalization to unseen labels is required.

In summary, our contributions are three-fold:

  1. We introduce a noisy channel approach for language model prompting in few-shot text classification, showing that they significantly outperform their direct counterparts for both demonstration methods and prompt tuning.

  2. We find particularly strong performance of channel models over direct models when the training data is imbalanced or generalization to unseen labels is required.

  3. Based on our extensive ablations, we provide recommendations between different models (direct vs. channel and prompt tuning vs. head tuning) based on given conditions such as the target task, the size of training data, the number of classes, the balance between labels in the training data, and whether generalization to unseen labels is required.

2 Related Work

2.1 Channel Model

Let and be the input and the output, respectively, the most widely-used models, denoted as direct models, compute . In contrast, the noisy channel models maximize  (Shannon, 1948; Brown et al., 1993).111 We follow Yu et al. (2017); Yee et al. (2019) in using the terms direct models and channel models. They are often referred as discriminative models and generative models in prior work (Yogatama et al., 2017; Lewis and Fan, 2018). In principle, these two distinctions are not always equivalent, e.g., a model that computes is generative but not the channel model. While the noisy channel approach has been the most successful in machine translation (Yamada and Knight, 2001; Koehn et al., 2003; Yu et al., 2017; Yee et al., 2019), it has also been studied in more general NLP tasks. Prior work provides a theoretical analysis that channel models approach their asymptotic errors more rapidly than their direct counterparts (Ng and Jordan, 2002), and empirically shows that channel models are more robust to distribution shift in text classification (Yogatama et al., 2017) or question answering (Lewis and Fan, 2018), and in a few-shot setup (Ding and Gimpel, 2019).

In this paper, we explore channel models using a large language model on a wide range of text classification tasks, focusing on prompt-based few-shot learning.

2.2 Few-shot Learning

Prior work in few-shot learning has used different approaches, including semi-supervised learning with data augmentation or consistency training 

(Miyato et al., 2017; Clark et al., 2018; Xie et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020) and meta learning (Finn et al., 2017; Huang et al., 2018; Bansal et al., 2020). Recent work has introduced prompting (or priming) of a large language model. For example, Brown et al. (2020) proposes to use a concatenation of training examples as a demonstration, so that when it is prepended to the input and is fed to the model, the model returns the output following the pattern in the training examples. This is especially attractive as it eliminates the need for updating parameters of the language model, which is often expensive and impractical. Subsequent work proposes alternative ways of scoring labels through better model calibration (Zhao et al., 2021; Holtzman et al., 2021). Other work explores learning better prompts, either in a discrete space (Shin et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2021) or in a continuous space (Li and Liang, 2021; Lester et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021; Zhong et al., 2021; Qin and Eisner, 2021). Almost all of them are direct models, computing the likelihood of given with the prompts.

Our work is closely related to two recent papers. Tam et al. (2021) studies a label-conditioning objective for masked language models; although this is not strictly a generative channel model, conditioning on the output is similar to our work. However, they are still optimizing a discriminative objective, and inference at test time is the same as with the direct model. Moreover, it works with finetuning the entire language model, which is not possible for our zero- and few-shot evaluations. Holtzman et al. (2021) explores zero-shot models that compute the probability of given based on Pointwise Mutual Information, but with a restriction that the input and the output are interchangeable. To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first that uses a noisy channel model for few-shot language model prompting for classification, and also the first to draw the connection with the noisy channel literature.

3 Formulation

Method Zero-shot Concat-based Demonstrations Ensemble-based Demonstrations
Table 1: Comparison of zero-shot, concat-based demonstrations, and ensemble-based demonstrations. is training data, is the verbalizer, and is a concatenation of .

We focus on text classification tasks. The goal is to learn a task function , where is the set of all natural language texts and is a set of labels. We consider three formulations.

Direct computes distributions of labels given the input :

. This is the most widely used method in modern neural networks.

Direct++ is a stronger direct model that computes instead of , following the method from Holtzman et al. (2021) and the non-parametric method from Zhao et al. (2021). This approach is motivated by the fact that language models can be poorly calibrated and suffer from competition between different strings with the same meaning. This approach is used for the demonstration methods in Section 4.1.

Channel uses Bayes’ rule to reparameterize as . As we are generally interested in and is independent from , it is sufficient to model . We assume and only compute .

4 Method

We explore direct and channel models using a causal language model (LM) that gives the conditional probability of the text when followed by . More precisely, given the text and (, where is the vocabulary set), indicates .222 In practice, we use length normalization that was found to be effective by Holtzman et al. (2021).

When learning a task function , we also assume a pre-defined verbalizer which maps each label into a natural language expression. For example, if the task is sentiment analysis with , an example input text would be “A three-hour cinema master class” and an example would have “It was great” and “It was terrible”. In a few-shot setup, we are also given a set of training examples .

We are mainly interested in methods where there is no trainable parameters (Section 4.1), or the number of trainable parameters is roughly smaller than 0.01% of the total (Section 4.2). This shares motivations from prior work that updating and saving a large number of parameters for every task is expensive and often infeasible (Rebuffi et al., 2017; Houlsby et al., 2019; Lester et al., 2021).

4.1 Demonstration methods

In demonstration methods, there are no trainable parameters. We explore three ways of making a prediction (Table 1), two of which are from Brown et al. (2020) and the third from this paper.

4.1.1 Zero-shot

We follow Brown et al. (2020) in computing and as and , respectively. For example, given “A three-hour cinema master class”, the direct model compares the probabilities of “It was great” and “It was terrible” when following “A three-hour cinema master class”, while the channel model considers the probabilities of “A three-hour cinema master class” when following “It was great” or “It was terrible”.

4.1.2 Concat-based demonstrations

We follow the few-shot learning method in Brown et al. (2020). The key idea is to prepend a concatenation of training examples to the input so that a language model can learn the task setup from the input. The original method was used for a direct model, but can be naturally extended for a channel model. Concretely, in direct models is obtained via , and in channel models is obtained via .

4.1.3 Ensemble-based demonstrations

We propose a new method as an alternative to the concat-based method, which we find to be a stronger direct model. The key idea is, instead of concatenating training examples as one sequence and getting output probabilities from an LM once, we obtain output probabilities from an LM times conditioned on one training example at a time, and multiply the resulting probabilities. Specifically, is computed via and is computed via . This method also reduces the memory consumption—the concat-based method uses while this method uses —and eliminates the dependency on the ordering of training examples, which has been shown to significantly impact the model performance (Zhao et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2021).

Figure 2: Different finetuning methods, which compute the distributions of the next token given “A three-hour cinema master class”. Yellow boxes indicate trainable parameters; white boxes are frozen parameters. and denote the hidden dimension of the LM and the vocabulary size of , respectively. All finetuning is a typical finetuning method that updates all parameters of the LM (illustrated as a reference). Head tuning, Transformation tuning and Prompt tuning are described in Section 4.2; all of these methods update a very limited number of parameters.

4.2 Tuning methods

We explore methods that tune a very limited number of model parameters, as summarized in Figure 2. Head tuning (Section 4.2.1) and transformation tuning (Section 4.2.2) are for direct models. Prompt tuning (Section 4.2.3) can be used for both direct and channel models, which we refer as direct prompt tuning and channel prompt tuning, respectively, for simplicity. All models share the same input-output interface with the zero-shot setup in Table 1 during training and inference.

4.2.1 Head tuning

Head tuning finetunes the head—the matrix in the LM which transforms the hidden representation from the last transformer layer to the logit values. Let

be the head and be the hidden representations from the last transformer layer given , for a token is computed via an -th element of . We finetune while freezing all other parameters of the LM. Although is tied with the embedding matrix of the LM during language model pretraining, we separate them during finetuning. The number of trainable values is where denotes vocabularies in .333 This is different from head tuning from prior work, e.g., Le Scao and Rush (2021), which finetunes and uses a seperate, randomly initialized head instead of the LM head.

4.2.2 Transformation tuning

As an alternative to head tuning, we transform with a new transformation matrix . Specifically, for a token is computed via an -th element of . We train

, initialized from an identity matrix, and freeze other parameters including

. The number of trainable values is .

4.2.3 Prompt tuning

Prompt tuning is the method that has recently gathered much attention (Li and Liang, 2021; Lester et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021). The key idea is to consider the LM as a black-box model and instead learn continuous prompt embeddings. We follow the method from Lester et al. (2021) where prompt tokens are prepended to the input, and the embeddings of are learned. In other words, direct models compute , and channel models compute . The parameters in the LM are frozen except the embeddings of ,444 This is different from prompt tuning in Gao et al. (2021); Liu et al. (2021) which jointly trains prompt embeddings and the parameters of the LM. so that the number of trainable values is .

5 Experimental Setup

Dataset Task
SST-2 Sentiment analysis (movie) 2
SST-5 Sentiment analysis (movie) 5
MR Sentiment analysis (movie) 2
CR Sentiment analysis (electronics) 2
Amazon Sentiment analysis (Amazon) 5
Yelp Sentiment analysis (Yelp) 5
TREC Question classification (answer type) 6
AGNews News classification (topic) 4
Yahoo Question classification (topic) 10
DBPedia Ontology classification 14
Subj Subjectivity classification 2
Table 2: Datasets used for experiments. denotes the number of classes.See Appendix A for samples.

5.1 Datasets

We report results for eleven text classification datasets, following Zhang et al. (2015) and Gao et al. (2021): SST-2 (Socher et al., 2013), SST-5 (Socher et al., 2013), MR (Pang and Lee, 2005), CR (Hu and Liu, 2004), Amazon (McAuley and Leskovec, 2013), Yelp (Zhang et al., 2015), TREC (Voorhees and Tice, 2000), AGNews (Zhang et al., 2015), Yahoo (Zhang et al., 2015), DBPedia (Lehmann et al., 2015) and Subj (Pang and Lee, 2004). The datasets include a varied number of classes per task, from 2 to 14. See Table 10 in Appendix A for dataset samples.

Data Zero-shot (4 runs) Concat-based (20 runs) Ensemble-based (20 runs)
Direct Direct++ Channel Direct Direct++ Channel Direct Direct++ Channel
SST-2 63.0/51.1 80.3/76.9 77.1/74.8 58.9/50.6 66.8/51.7 85.0/83.1 57.5/50.9 79.7/68.0 77.5/59.5
SST-5 27.5/24.4 33.3/28.8 29.2/27.7 27.6/23.0 23.7/14.4 36.2/32.7 25.6/23.2 33.8/23.3 33.6/30.2
MR 61.7/50.3 77.4/73.2 74.3/69.3 56.4/50.0 60.2/50.5 80.5/76.8 58.8/50.0 76.8/60.1 76.1/60.0
CR 59.2/50.0 77.9/69.7 65.8/60.2 54.7/50.0 66.8/50.0 80.8/74.8 51.0/50.0 72.8/54.6 79.7/69.3
Amazon 31.2/22.4 37.6/35.0 37.1/31.6 33.0/21.4 40.8/35.7 39.4/34.3 31.7/23.1 39.8/32.0 40.4/36.2
Yelp 33.2/25.6 36.8/31.8 38.0/31.9 32.6/23.3 38.5/31.6 39.8/36.5 31.4/23.6 39.2/29.6 41.5/38.5
AGNews 59.8/47.8 59.9/44.0 61.8/59.7 34.0/25.0 51.2/34.4 68.5/60.6 51.9/34.2 73.1/58.6 74.3/69.3
TREC 38.7/26.0 27.7/12.6 30.5/19.4 27.2/9.4 31.6/13.0 42.0/26.8 32.1/13.0 22.9/9.8 31.5/23.8
Yahoo 20.7/17.8 35.3/28.7 48.7/48.1 13.0/10.0 29.6/19.4 56.2/52.3 16.6/10.7 50.6/46.5 58.6/57.4
DBPedia 32.3/18.6 37.6/30.4 51.4/42.7 32.5/7.1 71.1/55.2 58.5/40.0 46.8/17.1 72.6/55.7 64.8/57.0
Subj 51.0/49.9 52.0/48.8 57.8/51.5 53.7/49.9 56.9/50.0 60.5/40.8 51.6/49.6 52.2/41.8 52.4/46.9
Avg. 43.5/34.9 50.5/43.6 52.0/47.0 38.5/29.1 48.8/36.9 58.9/50.8 41.4/31.4 55.8/43.6 57.3/49.8
Table 3: Results from demonstration methods. All with GPT-2 Large. Two numbers respectively indicate the average and the worst-case accuracy over different verbalizers (zero-shot and few-shot) and data seeds (few-shot). ‘Avg.’ in the last row indicate the macro-average across all datasets.

5.2 Training Data

For few-shot learning, we primarily use training set size , but explore in the ablations. We uniformly sample the examples and relax the assumption from prior work of an equal number of training examples per label (Gao et al., 2021; Logan IV et al., 2021), for more realistic and challenging evaluation.

We do not use a held-out validation set and instead follow all the hyperameters and details from prior work (Appendix B). The very limited data is better used for training rather than validation, and cross-validation is less helpful when the validation set is extremely small (Perez et al., 2021).

5.3 Language Models

We use GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019) for the LM. We primarily use GPT-2 Large but also experiment with varying sizes (Small, Medium, Large and X-Large) in the ablations. While we only experiment with GPT-2, our experiments are easily extendable to other causal language models.

5.4 Evaluation

We use accuracy as a metric for all datasets.

We experiment with 4 different verbalizers (taken from Gao et al. (2021); full list provided in Appendix A), 5 different random seeds for sampling training data, and 4 different random seeds for training. This means we have (1) 4 runs for a zero-shot setup (as data seeds and train seeds do not matter), (2) 20 runs for demonstration methods (as train seeds do not matter), and (3) 80 runs for tuning methods. We then report Average accuracy and Worst-case accuracy.555

We also report standard deviation and best-case accuracy in the Appendix.

We consider the worst-case accuracy to be as important as the average accuracy given significantly high variance of few-shot learning models, as shown in previous work (Zhao et al., 2021; Perez et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2021). The worst-case accuracy is likely of more interest in high-risk applications (Asri et al., 2016; Guo et al., 2017).

Other implementation details are in Appendix B.

6 Experimental Results

This section reports results from demonstration methods (Section 6.1), tuning methods (Section 6.2) and ablations (Section 6.3). Discussion is provided in Section 7.

6.1 Main Results: Demonstration Methods

Table 3 shows the performance of demonstration methods.

Direct vs. Direct++

Direct++ significantly outperforms the naive direct model across all setups, indicating that using instead of is highly beneficial as claimed by Holtzman et al. (2021); Zhao et al. (2021).

Concat vs. Ensemble

Our proposed, ensemble-based method is better than the concat-based method in direct models, by 7% absolute in the average accuracy and the worst-case accuracy, when macro-averaged across all datasets.

In contrast, the ensemble-based method is not always better in channel models; it is better only on the datasets with long inputs. We conjecture that the ensemble-based method may suffer when labels in the training data are not balanced, which direct++ explicitly takes into account as described in Zhao et al. (2021).

Direct++ vs. Channel

In a few-shot setting, channel models outperform direct models in almost all cases. The strongest channel model outperforms the strongest direct model by 3.1% and 7.2% absolute, in terms of the average accuracy and the worst-case accuracy, respectively.

Standard deviation and the best-case accuracy are reported in Table 11 and Table 12 in the Appendix. They indicate strong performance of channel models can be attributed to their low variance. The highest best-case accuracy is achieved by direct++ on most datasets, but it has a higher variance, having lower average and the worst-case accuracy than channel models.

Zero-shot vs. Few-shot

Performance of direct models sometimes degrades in a few-shot setting, which is also observed by prior work (Zhao et al., 2021). This is likely because demonstrations provided by the training data may cause the model to be miscalibrated and easily biased by the choice of demonstrations. However, channel models achieve few-shot performance that is significantly better than zero-shot methods on all datasets.

6.2 Main Results: Tuning Methods

Table 4 shows the performance of tuning methods.

Comparison when prompt tuning

When using prompt tuning, channel models consistently outperform direct models by a large margin on all datasets. Improvements are 13.3% and 23.5% absolute in the average and the worst-case accuracy, respectively.

Standard deviation and the best-case accuracy are reported in Table 13 in the Appendix. Consistent with the findings in Section 6.1, the strong performance of channel prompt tuning can be explained by the low variance of channel prompt tuning. Direct prompt tuning often achieves higher best-case accuracy; however, due to its high variance, its overall accuracy is lower, with significantly lower worst-case accuracy.

Data Direct Channel
Head Trans Prompt Prompt
SST-2 80.2/68.6 77.3/57.5 72.6/50.9 85.8/81.3
SST-5 34.9/30.0 33.0/25.5 30.9/19.1 36.3/27.9
MR 73.7/56.4 71.3/51.6 67.4/50.1 81.7/78.0
CR 67.6/50.0 63.9/50.0 65.7/50.0 79.6/76.4
Amazon 34.5/28.8 32.1/18.2 31.2/20.0 43.4/39.2
Yelp 40.6/32.8 38.9/31.5 31.9/20.6 43.9/37.2
TREC 54.1/42.4 48.0/31.0 35.9/13.0 37.1/20.8
AGNews 74.1/61.2 66.9/47.0 61.9/25.2 73.4/63.9
Yahoo 39.1/31.4 33.8/23.0 27.4/15.7 54.0/46.7
DBPedia 49.3/37.5 42.4/28.6 41.8/9.9 67.7/52.9
Subj 86.3/79.1 86.0/71.6 65.5/49.9 75.5/58.8
Avg. 57.7/47.1 54.0/39.6 48.4/29.5 61.7/53.0
Table 4: Performance of tuning methods with a limited number of trainable parameters. All methods use GPT-2 Large, and are run 80 times. Head, Trans, Prompt indicate head tuning, transformation tuning and prompt tuning, respectively. We report the average / worst-case accuracies, separated by a slash. ‘Avg.’ is the macro-average across all datasets.
Head tuning vs. prompt tuning

We find that head tuning is a very strong method, despite often being omitted as a baseline in prior work. It significantly outperforms direct prompt tuning in all cases. It also outperforms channel prompt tuning on some datasets, particularly significantly on TREC and Subj. For these datasets, the task—finding the type of the answer to the question or identifying the subjectivity of the statement—is inherently different from language modeling, and likely benefits from directly updating the LM parameters, rather than using the LM as a black box.

Still, channel prompt tuning outperforms direct head tuning on most datasets. The largest gains are achieved on Yahoo and DBPedia. In fact, on these datasets, channel prompt tuning even outperforms all finetuning—finetuning all parameters of the LM—which achieves 48.9/43.8 on Yahoo and 66.3/50.4 on DBPedia. We conjecture that using on these datasets naturally requires generalization to unseen labels due to the large number of classes ( and ), where channel prompt tuning significantly outperforms direct models, as shown in Section 6.4.

Figure 3: Varying the size of LMs from GPT-2 Small to GPT-2 X-Large. The average accuracy (top) and the worst-case accuracy (bottom) are reported. All models are run 20 times (4 verbalizers and 5 data seeds). Head and Prompt indicate head tuning and prompt tuning, respectively. Trends are consistent across different sizes of LM.
Figure 4: Varying the number of training examples (). All models use GPT-2 Large. All, Head and Prompt indicate finetuning all parameters of the LM, head tuning and prompt tuning, respectively. Direct++ Demon and Channel Demon indicate demonstration-based methods (the best out of concat-based and ensemble-based is taken). Models are run 4 times for (4 verbalizers) and 20 times for others (4 verbalizers and 5 data seeds). Channel models are more competitive with smaller ; less competitive with larger .
Demonstration (Section 6.1) vs. Tuning

Logan IV et al. (2021) claims that prompt tuning does not outperform the demonstration method, which we find is true in direct models. When the channel models are used, prompt tuning outperforms the demonstration method by 3% on average.

6.3 Ablations

For the ablations, we report experiments on SST-2, MR, TREC and AGNews, using one train seed (instead of four), and four verbalizers and five data seeds (as in main experiments).

Varying the size of LMs

We vary the size of LMs and report the average and the worst-case accuracy in Figure 3. The trends—no matter the best performance is achieved by channel prompt tuning or direct head tuning—are fairly consistent across varying size of LMs.

Varying the number of training examples

We vary the number of training examples () and report the average accuracy in Figure 4. All methods achieve higher accuracy as increases. While we confirm strong performance of channel prompt tuning with , head tuning outperforms channel head tuning when . When , both direct prompt tuning and head tuning outperform channel prompt tuning. We think this is because (1) training signals amplified by channel models (Lewis and Fan, 2018) are more significant when is small, and (2) channel models are more beneficial when labels on the training data are imbalanced (confirmed in the next ablation), which is less likely to happen with larger .

It is also worth noting that our experiment with confirms the finding from Lester et al. (2021) that direct prompt tuning matches the performance of all finetuning—finetuning all parameters of the LM—while being much more parameter-efficient. This only holds with ; in a few-shot setup, all finetuning significantly outperforms other methods. This contradicts traditional analysis that having less trainable parameters is better when the training data is scarce (Ng and Jordan, 2002). It is likely because such analysis did not take into account language model pretraining, which gives supervision to the model yet is not the training data for an end task.

Impact of imbalance in labels

On binary datasets (SST-2 and MR), we vary the label imbalance in the training data with . Specifically, let and , i.e., the ratio of negative labels in the training data. We vary to be . means the labels are perfectly balanced, and means that labels in the training data only include . We additionally compare with upsampling baselines where we upsample training examples with infrequent labels so that the model has seen an equal number of examples per label during training.

Figure 5: Impact of imbalance in labels. The average accuracy on SST-2 and MR of different methods with varying ratios of negative labels on the training data (denoted as ), when (left) or (right). As increases, the data is more balanced. Channel models are more robust to imbalanced training data.
Data Zero-shot Finetuning
Direct++ Channel Direct All Direct Head Direct Trans Direct Prompt Channel Prompt
SST-2 80.3/76.9 77.1/74.8 50.2/49.1 50.2/49.1 50.2/49.1 50.2/49.1 85.5/82.5
SST-5 33.3/28.8 29.2/27.7 40.1/34.8 34.3/28.0 32.6/24.5 30.0/18.1 37.5/32.6
MR 77.4/73.2 74.3/69.3 50.0/50.0 50.0/50.0 50.0/50.0 50.0/50.0 80.9/74.8
CR 77.9/69.7 65.8/60.2 50.0/50.0 50.0/50.0 50.0/50.0 50.0/50.0 80.9/74.8
TREC 27.7/12.6 30.5/19.4 50.8/31.0 44.8/29.6 44.6/32.8 33.9/17.4 34.3/26.0
Subj 52.0/48.8 57.8/51.5 50.0/50.0 50.0/50.0 50.0/50.0 50.0/50.0 66.6/57.6
Table 5: Model performance when there is at least one label at test time that was unseen during training. All models are run 20 times (4 verbalizers and 5 data seeds). All, Head, Trans and Prompt indicate finetuning all parameters of the LM, head tuning, transformation tuning and prompt tuning, respectively. We report the average and the worst-case accuracy, separated by a slash.
Figure 6: Model performance when transferred to unseen data, where x-axis indicates training data. Direct Head is not applicable when label space is not shared (when test datasets are TREC, AGNews and Subj). Channel models have better generalization capacity than direct models.

Results are reported in Figure 5. All direct models are sensitive to the imbalance in training data, even though they benefit from upsampling when is small. Channel prompt tuning is insensitive to the imbalance, and significantly outperforms direct models when is small; it even outperforms all finetuning when . When is near to 0.5, direct head tuning matches or outperforms channel prompt tuning.

It is also worth noting that direct prompt tuning with upsampling matches or outperforms all finetuning and head tuning when is small.

6.4 Generalization to unseen labels

We experiment with a challenging scenario where the model must generalize to unseen labels. While it may be seen as an extreme scenario, this is often a practical setting, e.g., the problem is defined with a set of labels but later an addition of the new label may be needed.

In the first experiment, we sample training examples as in main experiments, but excluding one random label. This means that there is at least one label at test time that was unseen during training, i.e., . Table 5 reports the results. All of the direct models are not able to predict the label that is unseen at training time. However, channel prompt tuning successfully predicts unseen labels and achieves considerably better performance than zero-shot. It outperforms all finetuning on 2-way classification datasets, and outperforms head tuning on five datasets except for TREC on which head tuning achieves very strong performance on seen labels.

In the next experiment, we run zero-shot transfer learning, where the model is trained on one dataset and is tested on another dataset. Here, head tuning is not applicable when the labels are not shared between two datasets. Figure 

6 shows the results. Channel prompt tuning outperforms all direct models including all finetuning on all datasets except for TREC. It is particularly competitive when the tasks are inherently similar, e.g., transfer between 2-way sentiment analysis and 5-way sentiment analysis in the first three figures. In fact, in such cases, they achieve performance that is close to the models trained on in-domain data: 36.3, 43.4 and 43.9 vs. 38.0, 40.2 and 39.5 on SST-5, Amazon and Yelp, respectively. When tasks are inherently different, e.g., the rest of the figures in Figure 6, gains over zero-shot performance are relatively small; we think more work should be done to make cross-task transfer more competitive and to discover when it is possible.

This experiment is related to the ablation in Lester et al. (2021) that shows that in a full-shot setup, prompt tuning has strong generalization capacity when tested on out-of-domain data. However, unlike their findings, direct prompt tuning is worse than zero-shot in our experiments. We think this is because (1) we use small where direct prompt tuning is overall less competitive, and (2) our setup is more challenging in that it requires generalization to unseen labels, in contrast to the setting in Lester et al. (2021) where the training and the test data are inherently the same task but are drawn from different distributions.

7 Discussions & Conclusion

In this work, we introduced a noisy channel approach for few-shot text classification through language model prompting, where we either provide demonstrations to the language model or tune the prompt embeddings in the continuous space. Our experiments on eleven text classification datasets show that channel models outperform their direct counterparts by a significant margin, mainly because of their stability, i.e., lower variance and better worst-case accuracy. We also found that direct head tuning is more competitive than previously thought, and different methods are preferred given different conditions. Specifically, channel prompt tuning is preferred when:

is small

Channel prompt tuning is more competitive when there are fewer training examples. This is in line with previous work: analysis in Ng and Jordan (2002) shows that channel models are better when there are fewer training examples; Lewis and Fan (2018) claims that channel models provide more signals by requiring the model to explain the input word-by-word, which would be beneficial in the low data regime. We additionally think stability (i.e., low variance and high worst-case accuracy) of the channel prompt tuning is key to its merits with small , where direct models are highly unstable (Zhao et al., 2021; Perez et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2021).

Data is imbalanced or is large

When the training data is imbalanced, head tuning is uncompetitive, likely because the head relies too much on unconditional distributions of labels the model is exposed to. Channel prompt tuning is less sensitive to such a problem because labels are only a conditioning variable. Label imbalance in the training data is a real-world problem, especially when is small and is large. We thus suggest future work should explore relaxing the assumption of perfect balance in the training data.

Generalization to unseen labels is required

All direct models are unable to predict labels that are unseen during training, indicating that they overfit in the label space. In contrast, channel models can predict unseen labels, likely because the label space is indirectly modeled. This is in line with prior work that shows channel models are more competitive under a distribution shift (Yogatama et al., 2017; Lewis and Fan, 2018).

Task is closer to language modeling

If the task is too different from language modeling even with carefully chosen verbalizers (e.g., TREC and Subj), head tuning outperforms prompt tuning, likely because it benefits from directly updating the parameters of the LM. This may mean that causal LMs are not suitable for all tasks, or we need more sophisticated methods to apply causal LMs for such tasks without updating the LM parameters.

While we show that channel models are competitive in few-shot text classification, there are limitations that are avenues for future work. First, it is not as easy to use channel models for non classification tasks where modeling prior distributions is non-trivial. We think future work can obtain the prior with a separate model and incorporate it to the conditional LM as done by Lewis and Fan (2018), potentially with beam search decoding as in Yu et al. (2017); Yee et al. (2019).

Second, while this paper focuses on causal LMs, it is an open question how to use a channel model with masked LMs. Although we think channel models are not inherently restricted to causal LMs, the specific way in which existing masked LMs are pretrained makes it hard to use channel models without updating the LM parameters, e.g., masked LMs are not trained to generate long sentences. One recent approach uses a label-conditioning objective (Tam et al., 2021) as a clever way to introduce a channel-like model with existing masked LMs. Extending and further integrating these different approaches would be important for using channel models in a wider range of scenarios.


We thank Ari Holtzman, Eric Wallace, Gabriel Ilharco, Jungsoo Park, Myle Ott, Peter West and Ves Stoyanov for their helpful comments and discussions.


  • H. Asri, H. Mousannif, H. A. Moatassime, and T. Noël (2016)

    Using machine learning algorithms for breast cancer risk prediction and diagnosis

    In ANT/SEIT, Cited by: §5.4.
  • T. Bansal, R. Jha, T. Munkhdalai, and A. McCallum (2020) Self-supervised meta-learning for few-shot natural language classification tasks. In EMNLP, Cited by: §2.2.
  • P. F. Brown, S. A. Della Pietra, V. J. Della Pietra, and R. L. Mercer (1993)

    The mathematics of statistical machine translation: parameter estimation

    Computational linguistics. Cited by: §1, §2.1.
  • T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, S. Agarwal, A. Herbert-Voss, G. Krueger, T. Henighan, R. Child, A. Ramesh, D. Ziegler, J. Wu, C. Winter, C. Hesse, M. Chen, E. Sigler, M. Litwin, S. Gray, B. Chess, J. Clark, C. Berner, S. McCandlish, A. Radford, I. Sutskever, and D. Amodei (2020) Language models are few-shot learners. In NeurIPS, Cited by: §1, §1, §2.2, §4.1.1, §4.1.2, §4.1.
  • J. Chen, Z. Yang, and D. Yang (2020)

    MixText: linguistically-informed interpolation of hidden space for semi-supervised text classification

    In ACL, Cited by: §2.2.
  • K. Clark, M. Luong, C. D. Manning, and Q. V. Le (2018) Semi-supervised sequence modeling with cross-view training. In EMNLP, Cited by: §2.2.
  • X. Ding and K. Gimpel (2019) Latent-variable generative models for data-efficient text classification. In EMNLP, Cited by: §2.1.
  • C. Finn, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine (2017) Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks. In ICML, Cited by: §2.2.
  • T. Gao, A. Fisch, and D. Chen (2021) Making pre-trained language models better few-shot learners. In ACL, Cited by: Table 6, Appendix A, §2.2, §5.1, §5.2, §5.4, footnote 4.
  • C. Guo, G. Pleiss, Y. Sun, and K. Q. Weinberger (2017) On calibration of modern neural networks. In ICML, Cited by: §5.4.
  • A. Holtzman, P. West, V. Schwartz, Y. Choi, and L. Zettlemoyer (2021) Surface form competition: why the highest probability answer isn’t always right. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08315. Cited by: §1, §2.2, §2.2, §3, §6.1, footnote 2.
  • N. Houlsby, A. Giurgiu, S. Jastrzebski, B. Morrone, Q. De Laroussilhe, A. Gesmundo, M. Attariyan, and S. Gelly (2019) Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp. In ICML, Cited by: §4.
  • M. Hu and B. Liu (2004) Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Cited by: §5.1.
  • P. Huang, C. Wang, R. Singh, W. Yih, and X. He (2018) Natural language to structured query generation via meta-learning. In NAACL, Cited by: §2.2.
  • Z. Jiang, F. F. Xu, J. Araki, and G. Neubig (2020) How can we know what language models know?. TACL. Cited by: §2.2.
  • D. P. Kingma and J. Ba (2015) Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. In ICLR, Cited by: Appendix B.
  • P. Koehn, F. J. Och, and D. Marcu (2003) Statistical phrase-based translation. In NAACL-HLT, Cited by: §1, §2.1.
  • T. Le Scao and A. Rush (2021) How many data points is a prompt worth?. In NAACL-HLT, Cited by: footnote 3.
  • J. Lehmann, R. Isele, M. Jakob, A. Jentzsch, D. Kontokostas, P. N. Mendes, S. Hellmann, M. Morsey, P. Van Kleef, S. Auer, et al. (2015) Dbpedia–a large-scale, multilingual knowledge base extracted from wikipedia. Semantic web. Cited by: §5.1.
  • B. Lester, R. Al-Rfou, and N. Constant (2021) The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08691. Cited by: Appendix B, §1, §1, §2.2, §4.2.3, §4, §6.3, §6.4.
  • M. Lewis and A. Fan (2018) Generative question answering: learning to answer the whole question. In ICLR, Cited by: §1, §2.1, §6.3, §7, §7, §7, footnote 1.
  • X. L. Li and P. Liang (2021) Prefix-tuning: optimizing continuous prompts for generation. In ACL, Cited by: §1, §2.2, §4.2.3.
  • X. Liu, Y. Zheng, Z. Du, M. Ding, Y. Qian, Z. Yang, and J. Tang (2021) GPT understands, too. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.10385. Cited by: §2.2, §4.2.3, footnote 4.
  • R. L. Logan IV, I. Balaževic, E. Wallace, F. Petroni, S. Singh, and S. Riedel (2021) Cutting down on prompts and parameters: simple few-shot learning with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13353. Cited by: §5.2, §6.2.
  • Y. Lu, M. Bartolo, A. Moore, S. Riedel, and P. Stenetorp (2021) Fantastically ordered prompts and where to find them: overcoming few-shot prompt order sensitivity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08786. Cited by: §1, §4.1.3, §5.4, §7.
  • J. McAuley and J. Leskovec (2013) Hidden factors and hidden topics: understanding rating dimensions with review text. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Recommender systems, pp. 165–172. Cited by: §5.1.
  • T. Miyato, A. M. Dai, and I. Goodfellow (2017) Adversarial training methods for semi-supervised text classification. In ICLR, Cited by: §2.2.
  • A. Y. Ng and M. I. Jordan (2002)

    On discriminative vs. generative classifiers: a comparison of logistic regression and naive bayes

    In NeurIPS, Cited by: §2.1, §6.3, §7.
  • B. Pang and L. Lee (2004) A sentimental education: sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. In ACL, Cited by: §5.1.
  • B. Pang and L. Lee (2005) Seeing stars: exploiting class relationships for sentiment categorization with respect to rating scales. In ACL, Cited by: §5.1.
  • A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, et al. (2019) PyTorch: an imperative style, high-performance deep learning library.. In NeurIPS, Cited by: Appendix B.
  • E. Perez, D. Kiela, and K. Cho (2021) True few-shot learning with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.11447. Cited by: §1, §5.2, §5.4, §7.
  • G. Qin and J. Eisner (2021) Learning how to ask: querying lms with mixtures of soft prompts. In NAACL-HLT, Cited by: §2.2.
  • A. Radford, J. Wu, R. Child, D. Luan, D. Amodei, and I. Sutskever (2019) Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog. Cited by: §5.3.
  • S. Rebuffi, H. Bilen, and A. Vedaldi (2017) Learning multiple visual domains with residual adapters. In NeurIPS, Cited by: §4.
  • C. E. Shannon (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell system technical journal. Cited by: §2.1.
  • T. Shin, Y. Razeghi, R. L. Logan IV, E. Wallace, and S. Singh (2020) AutoPrompt: eliciting knowledge from language models with automatically generated prompts. In EMNLP, Cited by: §1, §2.2.
  • R. Socher, A. Perelygin, J. Wu, J. Chuang, C. D. Manning, A. Y. Ng, and C. Potts (2013) Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In EMNLP, Cited by: §5.1.
  • D. Tam, R. R. Menon, M. Bansal, S. Srivastava, and C. Raffel (2021) Improving and simplifying pattern exploiting training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11955. Cited by: §2.2, §7.
  • E. M. Voorhees and D. M. Tice (2000) Building a question answering test collection. In SIGIR, Cited by: §5.1.
  • T. Wolf, L. Debut, V. Sanh, J. Chaumond, C. Delangue, A. Moi, P. Cistac, T. Rault, R. Louf, M. Funtowicz, J. Davison, S. Shleifer, P. von Platen, C. Ma, Y. Jernite, J. Plu, C. Xu, T. L. Scao, S. Gugger, M. Drame, Q. Lhoest, and A. M. Rush (2020)

    Transformers: state-of-the-art natural language processing

    In EMNLP: System Demonstrations, Cited by: Appendix B.
  • Q. Xie, Z. Dai, E. Hovy, M. Luong, and Q. V. Le (2020) Unsupervised data augmentation for consistency training. In NeurIPS, Cited by: §2.2.
  • K. Yamada and K. Knight (2001) A syntax-based statistical translation model. In ACL, Cited by: §2.1.
  • K. Yee, N. Ng, Y. N. Dauphin, and M. Auli (2019)

    Simple and effective noisy channel modeling for neural machine translation

    In EMNLP, Cited by: §1, §2.1, §7, footnote 1.
  • D. Yogatama, C. Dyer, W. Ling, and P. Blunsom (2017)

    Generative and discriminative text classification with recurrent neural networks

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.01898. Cited by: §1, §2.1, §7, footnote 1.
  • L. Yu, P. Blunsom, C. Dyer, E. Grefenstette, and T. Kocisky (2017) The neural noisy channel. In ICLR, Cited by: §1, §2.1, §7, footnote 1.
  • X. Zhang, J. Zhao, and Y. LeCun (2015) Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In NeurIPS, Cited by: §5.1.
  • T. Z. Zhao, E. Wallace, S. Feng, D. Klein, and S. Singh (2021) Calibrate before use: improving few-shot performance of language models. In ICML, Cited by: §1, §2.2, §3, §4.1.3, §5.4, §6.1, §6.1, §6.1, §7.
  • Z. Zhong, D. Friedman, and D. Chen (2021) Factual probing is [mask]: learning vs. learning to recall. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.05240. Cited by: §2.2.

Appendix A Samples & Verbalizers

Table 10 shows samples from each dataset. Table 6 shows a list of verbalizers (four for each dataset), mainly taken from Gao et al. (2021) and label words included in the original data.

Dataset Verbalizers
SST-2, MR A MASK one.; It was MASK.; All in all MASK.; A MASK piece. (MASK={great, terrible})
SST-5, Amaon, Yelp (Same as above.) (MASK={great,good,okay,bad terrible})
TREC MASK: ; Q: MASK: ; Why MASK? ; Answer: MASK (MASK={Description, Entity, Expression, Human, Location, Number})
AGNews Topic: MASK.; Subject: MASK.; This is about MASK.; It is about MASK. (MASK={World, Sports, Business, Technology})
Yahoo (Same as above) (MASK={Society & Culture, Science & Mathematics, Health, Education & Reference, Computers & Internet, Sports, Business & Finance, Entertainment & Music, Family & Relationships, Politics & Government})
DBPedia (Same as above) (MASK={Company, Educational Institution, Artist, Athlete, Office Holder, Mean of Transportation, Building, Natural Place, Village, Animal, Plant, Album, Film, Written Work})
Subj This is MASK.; It’s all MASK.’ It’s MASK.; Is it MASK? (MASK={subjective, objective})
Table 6: Four different verbalizers for each dataset used in the experiments, separated by ‘;’. Verbalizers are taken from Gao et al. (2021) and label words included in the original data.
Data Direct Channel
Head Trans Prompt Prompt
SST-2 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.001
SST-5 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.001
MR 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1
CR 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.001
Amazon 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.1
Yelp 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.01
TREC 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.01
AGNews 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Yahoo 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.001
DBPedia 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.01
Subj 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.01
Table 7: Learning rates of the models in Table 4.
Data Size Direct Channel
Head Prompt Prompt
SST-2 S,M,XL 0.001 0.01 0.001
MR S,M,XL 0.001 0.01 0.1
TREC S 0.01 0.01 0.1
TREC M 0.01 0.01 1.0
TREC XL 0.001 0.01 0.1
AGNews S 0.001 0.01 0.1
AGNews M 0.001 0.01 0.01
AGNews XL 0.001 0.01 0.001
Table 8: Learning rates of the models in Figure 3.
Data Direct Channel
Head Prompt Prompt
SST-2 4 0.001 0.001 0.001
SST-2 64 0.001 0.01 0.001
SST-2 0.001 0.01 0.1
MR 4 0.001 0.001 0.001
MR 64, 0.001 0.01 0.1
TREC 4 0.001 0.001 0.001
TREC 64, 0.001 0.01 0.1
AGNews 4 0.001 0.001 0.1
AGNews 64 0.001 0.01 0.01
AGNews 0.001 0.01 0.1
Table 9: Learning rates of the models in Figure 4.
Data: SST-2, SST-5 and MR (Movie Sentiment Analysis)
    A three-hour cinema master class. (terrible)
    A pretensions – and disposable story — sink the movie. (great)
Data: CR
    It is slow, if you keep the original configuration and prigs (why’d u buy it then?!) it’ll run smoothly, but still slower
    then most other coloured-screen nokias. (terrible)
    It takes excellent pics and is very easy to use, if you read the manual. (great)
Data: Amazon
    Don’t waste your money if you already have 2003… There isn’t one reason to get this update if you already have MS
    Money 2003 Deluxe and Business. (terrible)
    The game was in perfect condition! came before it said it should have by 2 days!! I love the game and I suggest it to
    a lot of my friends!! (great)
Data: Yelp
    I’ve eaten at the other location, and liked it. But I tried this place, and I have JUST NOW recovered physically enough
    from the worst food poisoning I’ve ever heard of to write this review. (terrible)
    Great ambiance, awesome appetizers, fantastic pizza, flawless customer service. (great)
Data: TREC
    How do you get a broken cork out of a bottle? (Description)
    Mississippi is nicknamed what? (Entity)
    What is BPH? (Expression)
    Who won the Novel Peace Prize in 1991? (Human)
    What stadium do the Miami Dolphins play their home games in? (Location)
    How long did the Charles Manson murder trial last? (Number)
Data: AGNews
    Peru Rebel Leader Offers to Surrender Reuters - The leader of an armed group which took over a police station in a
    southern Peruvian town three days ago and demanded the president’s resignation … (World)
    Walk in park for Yankees Drained by a difficult week, the New York Yankees needed an uplifting victory. (Sports)
    Schwab plans new, smaller branches SAN FRANCISCO – Charles Schwab & Co. is opening new offices that are
    smaller than its current branches … (Business)
    NASA Mountain View claims world’s fastest computer. (Technology)
Data: Yahoo
    What’s one change you could make to your lifestyle that would give you more peace? … (Society & Culture)
    If the average for a test was 74% and the standard deviation was 13, are you within 1 SD if you scored a 62?
    (Science & Mathematics)
    Can someone explain to me what IndexOf is in Visual Basic? (Computers & Internet)
Data: DBPedia

  Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated headquartered in Charlotte North Carolina is the largest independent Coca-

    Cola bottler in the United States … (Company)
    Elk County Catholic High School is a private Roman Catholic high school in … (Educational Institution)
    Louis Wiltshire (born 23 April 1969) is a British sculptor. … (Artist)
    Russel Paul Kemmerer (botn November 1 1931 in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania) is an American retired professional
    baseball player. (Athlete)
    Dialectica aemula is a moth of the Gracillariidae family. … (Animal)
    Ephedra viridis known by the common names green Mormon tea green ephedra is a species of Ephedra. (Plant)
Data: Subj
    As i settled into my world war ii memory, i found myself strangely moved by even the corniest and most hackneyed
    contrivances. (subjective)
    This is a story about the warm relationship between a little girl and her father despite the difficult conditions they
    have to live in. (objective)
Table 10: Samples from each dataset. indicates the label.

Appendix B Implementation Details

We use PyTorch (Paszke et al., 2019) and Huggingface Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020). For MR, we use the sentence polarity dataset version 1.0. We use the batch size of 32 and the sequence length of 128 for datasets with short input text (SST-2, SST-5, MR, TREC) and the batch size of 16 and the sequence length of 256 for datasets with long input text (AGNews, Amazon, Yelp, DBPedia, Yahoo, Subj). When the concat-based demonstration method is used, the sequence length is multiplied by the number of training examples, yet is bounded by 1024 which is a strict limit of GPT-2.

For all finetuning experiments, we train the model for 100 global steps. We use the loss divided by the number of all tokens in the batch. We use Adam optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2015) with no weight decay and no warmup steps. For head tuning, transformation tuning and prompt tuning, we use the learning rate and choose the one that gives the lowest training loss on average in order to eliminate the need of the validation data. The chosen learning rate values are reported in Table 7. For all finetuning, we use the learning rate of . For prompt tuning, we use prompt tokens which embeddings are initialized from a random subset of the top vocabularies, following the original paper (Lester et al., 2021).

Data Direct Direct++ Channel
Avg Best Worst Avg Best Worst Avg Best Worst
SST-2 58.9 77.4 50.6 66.8 81.0 51.7 85.0 86.9 83.1
SST-5 27.6 40.9 23.0 23.7 31.4 14.4 36.2 39.6 32.7
MR 56.4 78.2 50.0 60.2 79.0 50.5 80.5 83.2 76.8
CR 54.7 78.8 50.0 66.8 84.0 50.0 80.8 86.2 74.8
Amazon 33.0 43.6 21.4 40.8 46.4 35.7 39.4 42.6 34.3
Yelp 32.6 41.6 23.3 38.5 44.0 31.6 39.8 43.8 36.5
AGNews 34.0 62.3 25.0 51.2 68.0 34.4 68.5 76.1 60.6
TREC 27.2 42.0 9.4 31.6 78.4 13.0 42.0 54.4 26.8
Yahoo 13.0 18.7 10.0 29.6 40.7 19.4 56.2 57.7 52.3
DBPedia 32.5 68.2 7.1 71.1 82.4 55.2 58.5 74.3 40.0
Subj 53.7 71.8 49.9 56.9 75.9 50.0 60.5 68.0 40.8
Avg. 38.5 56.7 29.1 48.8 64.7 36.9 58.9 64.8 50.8
Table 11: Full results from demonstration methods when a concat-based method is used; analogous to Table 3. Avg, Std, Best and Worst indicate the average accuracy, standard deviation, the best-case accuracy and the worst-case accuracy, respectively. Bold: Best when combined with Table 12.
Data Direct Direct++ Channel
Avg Best Worst Avg Best Worst Avg Best Worst
SST-2 57.5 84.2 50.9 79.7 88.3 68.0 77.5 85.9 59.5
SST-5 25.6 34.6 23.2 33.8 42.4 23.3 33.6 38.0 30.2
MR 58.8 82.9 50.0 76.8 85.7 60.1 76.1 82.0 60.0
CR 51.0 59.0 50.0 72.8 87.4 54.6 79.7 84.0 69.3
Amazon 31.7 44.5 23.1 39.8 47.8 32.0 40.4 44.3 36.2
Yelp 31.4 41.4 23.6 39.2 47.3 29.6 41.5 43.5 38.5
AGNews 51.9 69.7 34.2 73.1 81.8 58.6 74.3 78.5 69.3
TREC 32.1 54.4 13.0 22.9 44.4 9.8 31.5 43.2 23.8
Yahoo 16.6 24.6 10.7 50.6 54.1 46.5 58.6 59.7 57.4
DBPedia 46.8 63.0 17.1 72.6 81.9 55.7 64.8 70.0 57.0
Subj 51.6 62.3 49.6 52.2 61.8 41.8 52.4 57.7 46.9
Avg. 41.4 56.4 31.4 55.8 65.7 43.6 57.3 62.4 49.8
Table 12: Full results from tuning methods when a ensemble-based method is used; analogous to Table 3. Avg, Std, Best and Worst indicate the average accuracy, standard deviation, the best-case accuracy and the worst-case accuracy, respectively. Bold: Best when combined with Table 11.
Data Direct Head Direct Trans Direct Prompt Channel Prompt
Avg Best Worst Avg Best Worst Avg Best Worst Avg Best Worst
SST-2 80.2 88.4 68.6 77.3 87.7 57.5 72.6 89.3 50.9 85.8 88.3 81.3
SST-5 34.9 40.1 30.0 33.0 40.0 25.5 30.9 42.6 19.1 36.3 41.6 27.9
MR 73.7 83.9 56.4 71.3 83.2 51.6 67.4 85.1 50.1 81.7 84.2 78.0
CR 67.6 84.0 50.0 63.9 84.5 50.0 65.7 87.4 50.0 79.6 82.7 76.4
Amazon 34.5 41.4 28.8 32.1 40.2 18.2 31.2 43.6 20.0 43.4 49.2 39.2
Yelp 40.6 46.9 32.8 38.9 46.3 31.5 31.9 45.0 20.6 43.9 47.2 37.2
TREC 54.1 71.2 42.4 48.0 66.6 31.0 35.9 65.8 13.0 37.1 55.8 20.8
AGNews 74.1 84.5 61.2 66.9 83.5 47.0 61.9 83.5 25.2 73.4 77.9 63.9
Yahoo 39.1 44.9 31.4 33.8 43.8 23.0 27.4 39.0 15.7 54.0 57.6 46.7
DBPedia 49.3 64.2 37.5 42.4 56.9 28.6 41.8 75.3 9.9 67.7 78.3 52.9
Subj 86.3 90.9 79.1 86.0 90.8 71.6 65.5 78.7 49.9 75.5 84.5 58.8
Avg. 57.7 67.3 47.1 54.0 65.8 39.6 48.4 66.9 29.5 61.7 67.9 53.0
Table 13: Full results from tuning methods; analogous to Table 4. Head, Trans, Prompt indicate head tuning, transformation tuning and prompt tuning, respectively. Avg, Std, Best and Worst indicate the average accuracy, standard deviation, the best-case accuracy and the worst-case accuracy, respectively.