The Document of LongT5 confilcts with and its example code of prefix
### System Info

All.

### Who can help?

@patrickvonplaten 

### Reproduction

See https://huggingface.co/docs/transformers/main/en/model_doc/longt5

### Expected behavior

In the above document, it said `Unlike the T5 model, LongT5 does not use a task prefix. Furthermore, it uses a different pre-training objective inspired by the pre-training of [PegasusForConditionalGeneration].`. But in the example code of `LongT5ForConditionalGeneration`, there is a prefix of `summarize: `.  I am confused about how to use LongT5 in different down tasks. Could you please help? Thanks.
@stancld @patil-suraj Could you please help to solve this issue and tell me how to set and use special down tasks for LongT5? Thanks.<|||||>Hi @GabrielLin, with LongT5 model no prefix should be added to the input sentence. The doc example seems not to be accurate.<|||||>Hi, @stancld . Thank you for your reply. Could you please indicate how to use `[PegasusForConditionalGeneration]` for different down-tasks and help to fix the example code? I have no ideas.<|||||>> Hi, @stancld . Thank you for your reply. Could you please indicate how to use `[PegasusForConditionalGeneration]` for different down-tasks and help to fix the example code? I have no ideas.

Hi, example should have been already fixed by @patrickvonplaten. Fine-tuning on different down-tasks should be pretty standard. There's no prefix, you can thus use same techniques for models like BART, GPT-2, etc. :] However, the final performance is questionable as, AFAIK, only summarization and Q&A has been investigated so far.<|||||>> > Hi, @stancld . Thank you for your reply. Could you please indicate how to use `[PegasusForConditionalGeneration]` for different down-tasks and help to fix the example code? I have no ideas.
> 
> Hi, example should have been already fixed by @patrickvonplaten. Fine-tuning on different down-tasks should be pretty standard. There's no prefix, you can thus use same techniques for models like BART, GPT-2, etc. :] However, the final performance is questionable as, AFAIK, only summarization and Q&A has been investigated so far.

Thank you @stancld . Thank @patrickvonplaten . I have one more question. If having the prefix, I consider that different down-tasks can be fine-tuned in the same model. Now, without the prefix, should we use separated model for different down-tasks? Thanks.<|||||>Hey @GabrielLin 

That depends on how different the use cases are and what your limitations are exactly. In general, I'd say yes you should use different fine-tuned models for different tasks<|||||>@patrickvonplaten Got it. Thanks. This issue has been fixed and closed.