Papers › An Empirical Study of Instruction-tuning Large Language Models in Chinese
An Empirical Study of Instruction-tuning Large Language Models in Chinese
Qingyi Si, Tong Wang, Zheng Lin, Xu Zhang, Yanan Cao, Weiping Wang
The success of ChatGPT validates the potential of large language models (LLMs) in artificial general intelligence (AGI). Subsequently, the release of LLMs has sparked the open-source community's interest in instruction-tuning, which is deemed to accelerate ChatGPT's replication process. However, research on instruction-tuning LLMs in Chinese, the world's most spoken language, is still in its early stages. Therefore, this paper makes an in-depth empirical study of instruction-tuning LLMs in Chinese, which can serve as a cookbook that provides valuable findings for effectively customizing LLMs that can better respond to Chinese instructions. Specifically, we systematically explore the impact of LLM bases, parameter-efficient methods, instruction data types, which are the three most important elements for instruction-tuning. Besides, we also conduct experiment to study the impact of other factors, e.g., chain-of-thought data and human-value alignment. We hope that this empirical study can make a modest contribution to the open Chinese version of ChatGPT. This paper will release a powerful Chinese LLMs that is comparable to ChatGLM. The code and data are available at https://github.com/PhoebusSi/Alpaca-CoT.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections