Example is underwhelming

[TimZaman]

Describe the issue as clearly as possible:

I used README.md's example, and changed the review to "Review: This restaurant is bad!" -instead of 'good'- or any similar negative phrasing. The answer given back is almost exclusively "Positive".

I understand this is the model's behaviour, but maybe either:

1. this model isn't up to this task
2. the prompt is too hard for this example.

Suggestion: We could reconsider a more illustrative example

Steps/code to reproduce the bug:

import outlines

model = outlines.models.transformers("microsoft/Phi-3-mini-4k-instruct")

prompt = """You are a sentiment-labelling assistant.
Is the following review positive or negative?

Review: This restaurant is bad!
"""

generator = outlines.generate.choice(model, ["Positive", "Negative"])
answer = generator(prompt)
print(f'{answer=}')

Expected result:

"Negative"

Error message:

"Positive"

Outlines/Python version information:

outlines v 0.1.11 Python 3.10.14 | packaged by conda-forge | (main, Mar 20 2024, 12:51:49) [Clang 16.0.6 ]

Context for the issue:

first time user trying out the example

[denadai2]

what happens without outlines?

[cpfiffer]

This might be a result of not using the proper chat templating in the example. This works better:

import outlines
from transformers import AutoTokenizer

model_name = "microsoft/Phi-3-mini-4k-instruct"
tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(model_name)
model = outlines.models.transformers(model_name)

def template(prompt: str) -> str:
    return tokenizer.apply_chat_template(
        [{"role": "user", "content": prompt}],
        tokenize=False,
        add_bos=True,
        add_generation_prompt=True,
    )

prompt = """You are a sentiment-labelling assistant.
Is the following review positive or negative?

Review: This restaurant is bad!
"""

generator = outlines.generate.choice(model, ["Positive", "Negative"])
answer = generator(template(prompt))
print(f'{answer=}')

[cpfiffer]

This is a general issue with the documentation and in outlines use more generally. We have a few outstanding issues for this, like #987, #756,

There's a PR #1019 which might address this, though currently it seems to be in limbo.