about
Text Classification via Large Language Models (arxiv.org)
1 point by PaulHoule on Oct 16, 2023 | hide | past | pdf | 1 comment on HN

In plain words: A prompt makes the model spot clues like keywords and tone, then reason to a label; a trained model picks labeled examples to show it. It beat fine-tuned systems on most benchmarks and matched them with 16 examples per class instead of a thousand.

Abstract

Despite the remarkable success of large-scale Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-3, their performances still significantly underperform fine-tuned models in the task of text classification. This is due to (1) the lack of reasoning ability in addressing complex linguistic phenomena (e.g., intensification, contrast, irony etc); (2) limited number of tokens allowed in in-context learning. In this paper, we introduce Clue And Reasoning Prompting (CARP). CARP adopts a progressive reasoning strategy tailored to addressing the complex linguistic phenomena involved in text classification: CARP first prompts LLMs to find superficial clues (e.g., keywords, tones, semantic relations, references, etc), based on which a diagnostic reasoning process is induced for final decisions. To further address the limited-token issue, CARP uses a fine-tuned model on the supervised dataset for $k$NN demonstration search in the in-context learning, allowing the model to take the advantage of both LLM's generalization ability and the task-specific evidence provided by the full labeled dataset. Remarkably, CARP yields new SOTA performances on 4 out of 5 widely-used text-classification benchmarks, 97.39 (+1.24) on SST-2, 96.40 (+0.72) on AGNews, 98.78 (+0.25) on R8 and 96.95 (+0.6) on R52, and a performance comparable to SOTA on MR (92.39 v.s. 93.3). More importantly, we find that CARP delivers impressive abilities on low-resource and domain-adaptation setups. Specifically, using 16 examples per class, CARP achieves comparable performances to supervised models with 1,024 examples per class.

Xiaofei Sun, Xiaoya Li, Jiwei Li, Fei Wu, Shangwei Guo, Tianwei Zhang, Guoyin Wang
arXiv:2305.08377 · cs.CL · submitted May 15, 2023 · updated Oct 9, 2023
abstract · pdf · html · Pre-print Version

add comment on HN

A takeaway I have from this paper is that the "one shot" paradigm where you just ask ChatGPT to do something works well enough to impress people who are working with it interactively but when you collect enough data to really evaluate it you find it doesn't do that well compared to what you can do if you get a reasonably sized (1000s of examples) training set and do fine tuning. I think this paper is good for putting the hype in context.