REVIEW 1 cited by
LLMs vs Established Text Augmentation Techniques for Classification: When do the Benefits Outweight the Costs?
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
The generative large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used for data augmentation tasks, where text samples are LLM-paraphrased and then used for classifier fine-tuning. However, a research that would confirm a clear cost-benefit advantage of LLMs over more established augmentation methods is largely missing. To study if (and when) is the LLM-based augmentation advantageous, we compared the effects of recent LLM augmentation methods with established ones on 6 datasets, 3 classifiers and 2 fine-tuning methods. We also varied the number of seeds and collected samples to better explore the downstream model accuracy space. Finally, we performed a cost-benefit analysis and show that LLM-based methods are worthy of deployment only when very small number of seeds is used. Moreover, in many cases, established methods lead to similar or better model accuracies.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
AI in Mental Health: Emotional and Sentiment Analysis of Large Language Models' Responses to Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Queries
Eight LLMs show measurably different emotional tones in mental-health answers: anxiety prompts produced near-saturated fear scores, depression prompts the most sadness, and stress prompts the most optimism.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.