REVIEW 2 cited by
Evaluating Generative Models for Graph-to-Text Generation
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have been widely employed for graph-to-text generation tasks. However, the process of finetuning LLMs requires significant training resources and annotation work. In this paper, we explore the capability of generative models to generate descriptive text from graph data in a zero-shot setting. Specifically, we evaluate GPT-3 and ChatGPT on two graph-to-text datasets and compare their performance with that of finetuned LLM models such as T5 and BART. Our results demonstrate that generative models are capable of generating fluent and coherent text, achieving BLEU scores of 10.57 and 11.08 for the AGENDA and WebNLG datasets, respectively. However, our error analysis reveals that generative models still struggle with understanding the semantic relations between entities, and they also tend to generate text with hallucinations or irrelevant information. As a part of error analysis, we utilize BERT to detect machine-generated text and achieve high macro-F1 scores. We have made the text generated by generative models publicly available.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Evaluating and Improving Graph to Text Generation with Large Language Models
Introducing PlanGTG, a 29k-pair instruction dataset with reordering and attribution subtasks, and fine-tuning 7B LLMs on it improves graph-to-text generation on WebNLG and DART over untuned and dataset-tuned baselines.
-
Ta-G-T: Subjectivity Capture in Table to Text Generation via RDF Graphs
A modular T5-based pipeline using RDF triples, sentence aggregation, and style transfer generates factual text with subjective interpretations from tables, achieving moderate gains over several LLM baselines.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.