REVIEW 1 cited by
Comparative Study of Domain Driven Terms Extraction Using Large Language Models
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
read the original abstract
Keywords play a crucial role in bridging the gap between human understanding and machine processing of textual data. They are essential to data enrichment because they form the basis for detailed annotations that provide a more insightful and in-depth view of the underlying data. Keyword/domain driven term extraction is a pivotal task in natural language processing, facilitating information retrieval, document summarization, and content categorization. This review focuses on keyword extraction methods, emphasizing the use of three major Large Language Models(LLMs): Llama2-7B, GPT-3.5, and Falcon-7B. We employed a custom Python package to interface with these LLMs, simplifying keyword extraction. Our study, utilizing the Inspec and PubMed datasets, evaluates the performance of these models. The Jaccard similarity index was used for assessment, yielding scores of 0.64 (Inspec) and 0.21 (PubMed) for GPT-3.5, 0.40 and 0.17 for Llama2-7B, and 0.23 and 0.12 for Falcon-7B. This paper underlines the role of prompt engineering in LLMs for better keyword extraction and discusses the impact of hallucination in LLMs on result evaluation. It also sheds light on the challenges in using LLMs for keyword extraction, including model complexity, resource demands, and optimization techniques.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
A Hybrid Framework for Subject Analysis: Integrating Embedding-Based Regression Models with Large Language Models
Using an ML-predicted label count to constrain LLM generation and post-editing outputs to the LCSH vocabulary lifts subject-heading prediction F1 from 0.135 to 0.300 on a 2,100-book test set.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.