Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

On-the-fly Definition Augmentation of LLMs for Biomedical NER

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2404.00152 v2 pith:7F6YUYVR submitted 2024-03-29 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords augmentationperformancebiomedicalknowledgellmsdatadefinitionimprove
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Despite their general capabilities, LLMs still struggle on biomedical NER tasks, which are difficult due to the presence of specialized terminology and lack of training data. In this work we set out to improve LLM performance on biomedical NER in limited data settings via a new knowledge augmentation approach which incorporates definitions of relevant concepts on-the-fly. During this process, to provide a test bed for knowledge augmentation, we perform a comprehensive exploration of prompting strategies. Our experiments show that definition augmentation is useful for both open source and closed LLMs. For example, it leads to a relative improvement of 15\% (on average) in GPT-4 performance (F1) across all (six) of our test datasets. We conduct extensive ablations and analyses to demonstrate that our performance improvements stem from adding relevant definitional knowledge. We find that careful prompting strategies also improve LLM performance, allowing them to outperform fine-tuned language models in few-shot settings. To facilitate future research in this direction, we release our code at https://github.com/allenai/beacon.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Multi-Task Evaluation of LLMs' Processing of Academic Text Input

    cs.CL 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    The abstract reports Gemini underperforms on four academic text tasks, but the attached full text is an unrelated biomedical retrieval paper, leaving the claims unverifiable.

Pith tools