pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.26595 · v1 · pith:7MUAX7IKnew · submitted 2026-06-25 · 💻 cs.AI

LLM-based Models for Detecting Emerging Topics in Service Feedback

Mahsa Tavakoli , Ruth Bankey , Cristi\'an Bravo This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 05:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI
keywords emerging topic detectionlarge language modelshuman-in-the-loopservice feedback analysistax administrationmultilingual text processingequity detection
0
0 comments X

The pith

A hybrid system of fine-tuned LLMs and expert oversight detects emerging topics in tax feedback with closer expert alignment than baseline models.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper sets out to demonstrate that large language models combined with statistical techniques and a human review step can identify new service quality issues in customer feedback for tax administrations. This matters because manual review or fixed indicators cannot keep pace with growing volumes of multilingual comments that may point to unequal treatment across populations. A sympathetic reader would expect the method to deliver scalable analysis while keeping outputs grounded through oversight. The evaluation rests on similarity measures and direct ratings from tax officers to support the claim of improved performance.

Core claim

The central claim is that the proposed methodology integrates fine-tuned and quantized LLMs with expert oversight in a human-in-the-loop framework to detect emerging service quality topics in multilingual feedback, yielding outputs that align more closely with assessments from experienced tax officers than baseline models while also limiting fabrication of unsupported content.

What carries the argument

The human-AI collaboration framework that pairs fine-tuned quantized large language models with expert oversight to analyze feedback text and surface emerging topics.

If this is right

  • Public agencies gain the ability to review larger volumes of multilingual feedback without a matching increase in manual effort.
  • Potential inequities in service delivery become visible through the detected topics for targeted policy response.
  • Decision-making in tax administrations can draw on more timely evidence derived from actual customer comments.
  • The oversight step produces topic lists with fewer unsupported or fabricated elements than fully automated LLM outputs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same structure could be tested on feedback from other public services where language and volume create similar review bottlenecks.
  • Repeated validation cycles might allow the model to require progressively less expert input while preserving alignment.
  • A practical check would compare whether topics flagged early by the system later appear as measurable changes in compliance or complaint volumes.

Load-bearing premise

That the judgments provided by the tax officers form an independent and stable reference standard unaffected by the model outputs themselves.

What would settle it

A new collection of feedback texts where the topics generated by the proposed system receive consistently lower relevance or accuracy ratings from tax officers than topics from baseline models would falsify the alignment claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.26595 by Cristi\'an Bravo, Mahsa Tavakoli, Ruth Bankey.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of Text Preprocessing Pipeline: De-identification, Named Entity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The 13 Service Quality Elements in which each feedback is classified into. As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Flowchart showing the process of analyzing de-identified text feedback to detect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Flowchart illustrating the processing of the preprocessed text through the model, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Workflow of trend analysis across two time periods. The figure depicts the pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Unigram and Bigram Frequency Analysis of English and French Feedback [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Three-phase methodology for taxpayer feedback categorization: Tokenization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Topic distribution across Service Quality Elements as categorized by Tax Service [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Topic distribution across SQEs identified by the pretrained LLM (Zephyr). The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Topic distribution across SQEs identified by the fine-tuned and quantized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Enhancing the analysis of service feedback is essential for public sector organizations, particularly tax administrations, where trust and compliance depend on fair and effective service delivery. As feedback volumes grow, identifying emerging service quality issues and potential disparities across diverse populations becomes increasingly challenging. Traditional approaches often rely on manual review or static expert-defined indicators, limiting scalability and the ability to capture complex patterns in textual feedback. This paper presents a novel methodology that integrates large language models (LLMs), statistical techniques, and human-AI collaboration to improve multilingual customer feedback analysis. The primary objective is to detect emerging service quality topics that may also reveal potential inequities in service delivery. Our framework combines fine-tuned, quantized LLMs with expert oversight to produce accurate, computationally efficient, and context-aware analyses. The proposed approach was evaluated using similarity analysis and assessments from experienced tax officers, demonstrating stronger alignment with expert judgments than baseline models. By incorporating a human-in-the-loop framework, the methodology reduces LLM fabrication while improving the reliability and relevance of generated insights. The results demonstrate the practicality of combining LLMs with human expertise to support scalable, evidence-based decision-making in public sector organizations. This work contributes to the development of responsible AI systems that enhance service quality, responsiveness, fairness, and public trust through more effective analysis of multilingual customer feedback.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a methodology integrating fine-tuned quantized LLMs, statistical techniques, and human-AI collaboration to detect emerging service quality topics and potential inequities in multilingual customer feedback for public-sector organizations such as tax administrations. It claims the approach was evaluated via similarity analysis and assessments by experienced tax officers, showing stronger alignment with expert judgments than baseline models while the human-in-the-loop step reduces LLM fabrication and improves reliability.

Significance. If the empirical claims are substantiated with quantitative evidence, the work could provide a scalable framework for evidence-based analysis of service feedback in government contexts, supporting improved responsiveness, fairness, and trust. It targets a practical challenge where manual or static methods are insufficient for growing data volumes.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the proposed approach demonstrates 'stronger alignment with expert judgments than baseline models' supplies no quantitative metrics (similarity scores, agreement coefficients, p-values), no dataset size, no count of tax officers, no blinding or independence protocol, and no description of how outputs were presented to experts. This is load-bearing because the paper's contribution is framed entirely as an empirical improvement in reliability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for identifying the need to strengthen the abstract's presentation of the empirical claims. We address the point directly below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the proposed approach demonstrates 'stronger alignment with expert judgments than baseline models' supplies no quantitative metrics (similarity scores, agreement coefficients, p-values), no dataset size, no count of tax officers, no blinding or independence protocol, and no description of how outputs were presented to experts. This is load-bearing because the paper's contribution is framed entirely as an empirical improvement in reliability.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract, as currently written, is too high-level and does not supply the quantitative details needed to substantiate the central claim on its own. The body of the manuscript reports the similarity analysis and the tax-officer assessments, but these specifics are not summarized in the abstract. We will revise the abstract to include the key quantitative results (similarity scores, dataset size, number of officers) and a concise description of the evaluation protocol. We will also verify that the methods section explicitly states the blinding/independence procedures and how outputs were shown to experts; if any of these elements require additional clarification, they will be added during revision. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical methodology with no derivations or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The paper presents an LLM-plus-human-in-the-loop methodology for topic detection evaluated by similarity analysis and tax-officer assessments. No equations, parameter-fitting steps, self-citations, or ansatzes appear in the supplied abstract or described structure. The central claim of stronger expert alignment is framed as an external empirical result rather than a quantity derived from the model's own outputs or prior self-citations. Because no load-bearing derivation chain exists that reduces to its own inputs by construction, the work is self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No mathematical model or derivation; the central claim rests on empirical comparison whose details are not supplied in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5762 in / 1011 out tokens · 21040 ms · 2026-06-26T05:06:31.961822+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. L. Scott, S. A. Bone, G. L. Christensen, A. Lederer, M. Mende, B. G. Christensen, M. Cozac, Revealing and mitigating racial bias and discrimination in financial services, Journal of Marketing Research 61 (4) (2024) 598–618

    2024

  2. [2]

    URLhttps://citizenfirst.ca/assets/uploads/ research-repository/Joint-Councils-Executive-Report-February-2020

    Joint councils’ executive report february 2020, accessed: 2025-02-22. URLhttps://citizenfirst.ca/assets/uploads/ research-repository/Joint-Councils-Executive-Report-February-2020. pdf 35

    2020

  3. [3]

    URLhttps://fedscoop.com/federal-government-websites-public-satisfaction/

    FedScoop, Federal government websites public satisfaction, accessed: 2025-02-22 (2024). URLhttps://fedscoop.com/federal-government-websites-public-satisfaction/

    2025

  4. [4]

    K. Michael, In this special section: Algorithmic bias—australia’s ro- bodebt and its human rights aftermath, IEEE Transactions on Tech- nology and Society 5 (3) (2024) 254–263.doi:10.1109/TTS.2024. 1234567

    work page doi:10.1109/tts.2024 2024

  5. [5]

    N. Li, X. Yang, I. A. Wong, R. Law, J. Y. Xu, Automating tourism online reviews: A neural network based aspect-oriented sentiment clas- sification, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology 14 (1) (2023) 1–20.doi:10.1108/JHTT-03-2021-0099

    work page doi:10.1108/jhtt-03-2021-0099 2023

  6. [6]

    X. Chen, Y. Chen, G. Yin, Exploring the motivations behind behavior: A theory-driven deep-learning framework for cyberviolence behavior de- tection, Decision Support Systems (2025) 114409

    2025

  7. [7]

    Gunarathne, H

    P. Gunarathne, H. Rui, A. Seidmann, Racial bias in customer service: evidence from twitter, Information Systems Research 33 (1) (2022) 43– 54

    2022

  8. [8]

    Guilbeault, S

    D. Guilbeault, S. Delecourt, T. Hull, B. S. Desikan, M. Chu, E. Nadler, Online images amplify gender bias, Nature 626 (8001) (2024) 1049–1055

    2024

  9. [9]

    Zheng, G

    J. Zheng, G. Yin, Y. Tan, J. Ding, Does help help? an empirical analysis of social desirability bias in ratings, Information Systems Research 35 (3) (2024) 1052–1073

    2024

  10. [10]

    Linzmajer, S

    M. Linzmajer, S. Brach, G. Walsh, T. Wagner, Customer ethnic bias in service encounters, Journal of Service Research 23 (2) (2020) 194–210

    2020

  11. [11]

    Y. Xie, W. Yeoh, J. Wang, How self-selection bias in online reviews affects buyer satisfaction: A product type perspective, Decision Support Systems 181 (2024) 114199

    2024

  12. [12]

    J. Guo, X. Wang, Y. Wu, Positive emotion bias: Role of emotional content from online customer reviews in purchase decisions, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101891. 36

    2020

  13. [13]

    N. Chen, A. Li, K. Talluri, Reviews and self-selection bias with opera- tional implications, Management Science 67 (12) (2021) 7472–7492

    2021

  14. [14]

    Kumar, K

    Y. Kumar, K. Huang, A. Perez, G. Yang, J. J. Li, P. Morreale, D. Kruger, R. Jiang, Bias and cyberbullying detection and data gen- eration using transformer artificial intelligence models and top large language models, Electronics 13 (17) (2024) 3431

    2024

  15. [15]

    Ravfogel, et al., Bias and fairness in large language models: A survey, Computational Linguistics 50 (3) (2024) 1097–1130

    S. Ravfogel, et al., Bias and fairness in large language models: A survey, Computational Linguistics 50 (3) (2024) 1097–1130

    2024

  16. [16]

    Hasan, D

    Z. Hasan, D. Vaz, V. S. Athota, S. S. M. D´ esir´ e, V. Pereira, Can artificial intelligence (ai) manage behavioural biases among financial planners?, Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM) 31 (2) (2022) 1–18

    2022

  17. [17]

    Y. Zhang, et al., From bias to fairness: The role of domain-specific knowledge and efficient fine-tuning in large language models, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 58 (2024) 201–225

    2024

  18. [18]

    Pillai, Y

    R. Pillai, Y. Ghanghorkar, B. Sivathanu, R. Algharabat, N. P. Rana, Adoption of artificial intelligence (ai) based employee experience (eex) chatbots, Information Technology & People 37 (1) (2024) 449–478

    2024

  19. [19]

    M. Adam, M. Wessel, A. Benlian, Ai-based chatbots in customer service and their effects on user compliance, Electronic Markets 31 (2021) 427– 445

    2021

  20. [20]

    Shah, et al., A review of natural language processing in contact centre automation, Pattern Analysis and Applications 26 (2023) 823–846

    S. Shah, et al., A review of natural language processing in contact centre automation, Pattern Analysis and Applications 26 (2023) 823–846

    2023

  21. [21]

    M. H. Miraz, A. Ya’u, S. Adeyinka-Ojo, J. B. Sarkar, M. T. Hasan, K. Hoque, H. H. Jin, Intention to use determinants of ai chatbots to improve customer relationship management efficiency, Cogent Business & Management 11 (1).doi:10.1080/23311975.2024.2411445

    work page doi:10.1080/23311975.2024.2411445 2024

  22. [22]

    Mogaji, J

    E. Mogaji, J. Farquhar, P. van Esch, C. Durodi´ e, R. Perez-Vega, Guest editorial: Artificial intelligence in financial services marketing, Interna- tional Journal of Bank Marketingdoi:10.1108/ijbm-09-2022-617

    work page doi:10.1108/ijbm-09-2022-617 2022

  23. [23]

    M. A. Camilleri, Artificial intelligence governance: Ethical considera- tions and implications for social responsibility, Expert systems 41 (7) (2024) e13406. 37

    2024

  24. [24]

    Zimmermann, L

    J. Zimmermann, L. E. Champagne, J. M. Dickens, B. T. Hazen, Ap- proaches to improve preprocessing for latent dirichlet allocation topic modeling, Decision Support Systems 185 (2024) 114310

    2024

  25. [25]

    H. Li, Y. Qian, Y. Jiang, Y. Liu, F. Zhou, A novel label-based multi- modal topic model for social media analysis, Decision Support Systems 164 (2023) 113863

    2023

  26. [26]

    B. A. H. Murshed, S. Mallappa, J. Abawajy, Short text topic modelling approaches in the context of big data: taxonomy, survey, and analysis, Artificial Intelligence Review. URLhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/ s10462-023-10345-9

  27. [27]

    Rogers, O

    A. Rogers, O. Kovaleva, A. Rumshisky, A primer in bertology: What we know about how bert works, Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 8 (2020) 842–866

    2020

  28. [28]

    Mishra, et al., Temporal analysis of computational economics: A topic modeling approach, International Journal of Data Science and An- alytics (2024) 1–15

    M. Mishra, et al., Temporal analysis of computational economics: A topic modeling approach, International Journal of Data Science and An- alytics (2024) 1–15

    2024

  29. [29]

    Y. F. Zhao, E. Niforatos, T. Custis, Y. Lu, J. Luo, Large language mod- els in design and manufacturing, Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering (2024) 1–6

    2024

  30. [30]

    Sufi, An innovative way of analyzing covid topics with llm, Journal of Economy and Technologydoi:10.1016/j.ject.2024.11.004

    F. Sufi, An innovative way of analyzing covid topics with llm, Journal of Economy and Technologydoi:10.1016/j.ject.2024.11.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ject.2024.11.004 2024

  31. [31]

    Tzelves, P

    L. Tzelves, P. Juliebø-Jones, B. K. Somani, The evolution of minimally invasive urologic surgery: Innovations, challenges, and opportunities, Frontiers in Surgery 11 (2024) 1525713

    2024

  32. [32]

    Friha, M

    O. Friha, M. A. Ferrag, B. Kantarci, B. Cakmak, A. Ozgun, N. Ghoualmi-Zine, Llm-based edge intelligence: A comprehensive sur- vey on architectures, applications, security and trustworthiness, IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society 5 (2024) 5799–5856. doi:10.1109/OJCOMS.2024.3456549

    work page doi:10.1109/ojcoms.2024.3456549 2024

  33. [33]

    A. M. Pereira, J. A. B. Moura, E. D. B. Costa, T. Vieira, A. R. Landim, E. Bazaki, V. Wanick, Customer models for artificial intelligence-based 38 decision support in fashion online retail supply chains, Decision Support Systems 158 (2022) 113795

    2022

  34. [34]

    Schetgen, M

    L. Schetgen, M. Bogaert, D. Van den Poel, Predicting donation behav- ior: Acquisition modeling in the nonprofit sector using facebook data, Decision Support Systems 141 (2021) 113446

    2021

  35. [35]

    A. Ojo, N. Rizun, G. Walsh, M. I. Mashinchi, M. Venosa, M. N. Rao, Prioritising national healthcare service issues from free text feedback–a computational text analysis & predictive modelling approach, Decision Support Systems 181 (2024) 114215

    2024

  36. [36]

    De Caigny, K

    A. De Caigny, K. W. De Bock, S. Verboven, Hybrid black-box classi- fication for customer churn prediction with segmented interpretability analysis, Decision Support Systems 181 (2024) 114217

    2024

  37. [37]

    S. Yi, X. Liu, Machine learning-based customer sentiment analysis for recommending shoppers, shops based on customers’ review, Complex & Intelligent Systems 6 (3) (2020) 621–634

    2020

  38. [38]

    Hwang, J

    S. Hwang, J. Kim, E. Park, S. J. Kwon, Who will be your next customer: A machine learning approach to customer return visits in airline services, Journal of Business Research 121 (2020) 121–126

    2020

  39. [39]

    Maibaum, J

    F. Maibaum, J. Kriebel, J. N. Foege, Selecting textual analysis tools to classify sustainability information in corporate reporting, Decision Support Systems 183 (2024) 114269

    2024

  40. [40]

    Simester, A

    D. Simester, A. Timoshenko, S. I. Zoumpoulis, Targeting prospective customers: Robustness of machine-learning methods to typical data challenges, Management Science 66 (6) (2020) 2495–2522

    2020

  41. [41]

    Zaghloul, S

    M. Zaghloul, S. Barakat, A. Rezk, Predicting e-commerce customer sat- isfaction: Traditional machine learning vs. deep learning approaches, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 79

  42. [42]

    Feldman, D

    J. Feldman, D. J. Zhang, X. Liu, N. Zhang, Customer choice models vs. machine learning: Finding optimal product displays on alibaba, Opera- tions Research 70 (1) (2022) 309–328. 39

    2022

  43. [43]

    M. S. Islam, M. Ferdusi, T. T. Aurpa, Words of war: A hybrid bert-cnn approach for topic-wise sentiment analysis on the russia-ukraine war, Expert Systems with Applications (2025) 127759

    2025

  44. [44]

    A. R. Nair, Natural language processing (nlp) in chatbot customer ser- vice, International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engi- neering Technology 13 (3) (2025) 715–721.doi:10.22214/ijraset. 2025.67353

    work page doi:10.22214/ijraset 2025

  45. [45]

    L. R. Krosuri, R. S. Aravapalli, Novel heuristic-based hybrid resnext with recurrent neural network to handle multi class classification of sen- timent analysis, Machine Learning: Science and Technology 4 (1) (2023) 015033

    2023

  46. [46]

    K. A. Tarnowska, Z. Ras, Nlp-based customer loyalty improvement rec- ommender system (clirs2), Big Data and Cognitive Computing 5 (1)

  47. [47]

    Shahin, F

    M. Shahin, F. F. Chen, A. Hosseinzadeh, M. Maghanaki, A. Eghbalian, A novel approach to voice of customer extraction using gpt-3.5 turbo: Linking advanced nlp and lean six sigma 4.0, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 131 (7) (2024) 3615–3630

    2024

  48. [48]

    T. Shu, Z. Wang, L. Lin, H. Jia, J. Zhou, Customer perceived risk measurement with nlp method in electric vehicles consumption market: Empirical study from china, Energies 15 (5)

  49. [49]

    Huang, K

    W. Huang, K. F. Hew, L. K. Fryer, Chatbots for language learning—are they really useful? a systematic review of chatbot-supported language learning, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 38 (1) (2022) 237–257. doi:10.1111/jcal.12610

    work page doi:10.1111/jcal.12610 2022

  50. [50]

    K. Yang, R. Y. Lau, A. Abbasi, Getting personal: A deep learning artifact for text-based measurement of personality, Information Systems Research 34 (1) (2023) 194–222

    2023

  51. [51]

    Bauer, M

    K. Bauer, M. von Zahn, O. Hinz, Expl(ai)ned: The impact of explain- able artificial intelligence on users’ information processing, Information Systems Research 34 (4) (2023) 1582–1602. 40

    2023

  52. [52]

    Guidotti, A

    R. Guidotti, A. Monreale, S. Ruggieri, F. Turini, F. Giannotti, D. Pe- dreschi, A survey of methods for explaining black box models, ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 51 (5) (2018) 1–42

    2018

  53. [53]

    Morley, L

    J. Morley, L. Floridi, L. Kinsey, A. Elhalal, From what to how: an initial review of publicly available ai ethics tools, methods and research to translate principles into practices, Science and engineering ethics 26 (4) (2020) 2141–2168

    2020

  54. [54]

    Face, Zephyr-7b-beta: A fine-tuned 7b parameter language model (2023)

    H. Face, Zephyr-7b-beta: A fine-tuned 7b parameter language model (2023). URLhttps://huggingface.co/HuggingFaceH4/zephyr-7b-beta

    2023

  55. [55]

    AI, Mistral-7b-instruct-v0.2: A high-performance language model (2023)

    M. AI, Mistral-7b-instruct-v0.2: A high-performance language model (2023). URLhttps://huggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-7B-v0.2

    2023

  56. [56]

    AI, Mistral-7b-instruct-v0.2: A high-performance instruction-tuned language model (2023)

    M. AI, Mistral-7b-instruct-v0.2: A high-performance instruction-tuned language model (2023). URLhttps://huggingface.co/mistralai/ Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2

    2023

  57. [57]

    Frantar, S

    E. Frantar, S. Ashkboos, T. Hoefler, D. Alistarh, Gptq: Accu- rate post-training quantization for generative pre-trained transformers, arXiv.Org

  58. [58]

    Frantar, et al., Gradient-preserving quantization for efficient large model training and inference, Journal of Neural Network Research

    E. Frantar, et al., Gradient-preserving quantization for efficient large model training and inference, Journal of Neural Network Research

  59. [59]

    Smith, A

    J. Smith, A. Doe, Advanced techniques in model quantization: Preserv- ing accuracy during training, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems

  60. [60]

    Garg, Ubis: Unigram bigram importance score for feature selection from short text, Expert Systems with Applications 195 (2022) 116563

    M. Garg, Ubis: Unigram bigram importance score for feature selection from short text, Expert Systems with Applications 195 (2022) 116563

    2022

  61. [61]

    Dettmers, A

    T. Dettmers, A. Pagnoni, A. Holtzman, L. Zettlemoyer, Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms, Advances in neural information processing systems 36 (2023) 10088–10115. 41

    2023