arXiv:2503.02718cs.CL2025-03被引 8

对比LLM生成与自修正策略在列类型标注中的效果与成本

Evaluating Knowledge Generation and Self-Refinement Strategies for LLM-based Column Type Annotation

  • 用训练数据生成标签定义,优于直接用示例进行上下文学习
  • 自修正使F1平均提升3.9%,12组中有10组表现更优
  • 微调+自修正组合性能最强,适合大规模标注场景

理解关系表中列的语义是索引数据湖以支持丰富数据搜索的重要预处理步骤。列类型标注(CTA)旨在将表列标注为给定词汇表中的术语。本文实验比较了基于大语言模型的多种知识生成与自修正策略:利用LLM生成术语定义、基于错误的定义修正、自我纠错,以及使用示例和术语定义进行微调。评估维度包括有效性(F1分数)和效率(令牌消耗与成本)。实验表明,最佳策略依赖于模型与数据集组合。在三个数据集中的两个上,使用训练数据生成标签定义优于使用相同数据作为上下文学习的演示。使用LLM修正标签定义使12种配置中的10种平均提升3.9% F1。结合微调模型与自修正定义的整体表现最优,相比零样本提示微调模型,F1至少提升3%。成本分析显示,小规模标注任务中自修正提示更经济;大规模标注时微调更高效。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Understanding the semantics of columns in relational tables is an important pre-processing step for indexing data lakes in order to provide rich data search. An approach to establishing such understanding is column type annotation (CTA) where the goal is to annotate table columns with terms from a given vocabulary. This paper experimentally compares different knowledge generation and self-refinement strategies for LLM-based column type annotation. The strategies include using LLMs to generate term definitions, error-based refinement of term definitions, self-correction, and fine-tuning using examples and term definitions. We evaluate these strategies along two dimensions: effectiveness measured as F1 performance and efficiency measured in terms of token usage and cost. Our experiments show that the best performing strategy depends on the model/dataset combination. We find that using training data to generate label definitions outperforms using the same data as demonstrations for in-context learning for two out of three datasets using OpenAI models. The experiments further show that using the LLMs to refine label definitions brings an average increase of 3.9% F1 in 10 out of 12 setups compared to the performance of the non-refined definitions. Combining fine-tuned models with self-refined term definitions results in the overall highest performance, outperforming zero-shot prompting fine-tuned models by at least 3% in F1 score. The costs analysis shows that while reaching similar F1 score, self-refinement via prompting is more cost efficient for use cases requiring smaller amounts of tables to be annotated while fine-tuning is more efficient for large amounts of tables.

列类型标注LLM自修正知识生成成本效率

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。