用大模型按用户意图生成多条连贯故事线,兼顾方向引导与叙事质量。
Agenda-based Narrative Extraction: Steering Pathfinding Algorithms with Large Language Models
- 在路径规划中嵌入大模型,按用户设定的议程动态筛选文档
- 相比关键词匹配,议程对齐度提升9.9%,特定议题提升13.3%
- 保持高连贯性,代价仅降低2.2%,适合需要多视角叙事的场景
现有叙事生成方法在连贯性、交互性和多故事线支持间存在权衡。Narrative Maps 虽能支持丰富交互和多线索生成,但路径连贯性下降;Narrative Trails 通过最大容量路径优化实现高连贯性,却缺乏用户引导与多视角机制。本文提出议程驱动的叙事提取方法,将大语言模型融入 Narrative Trails 的路径规划过程,使故事线构建可由用户指定视角引导。该方法在每一步利用大模型根据议程对候选文档进行排序,同时保持叙事连贯性。使用相同语料库,不同议程可生成不同故事线。我们在新闻文章语料库上评估,采用 Claude Opus 4.5 和 GPT 5.1 作为评判模型,覆盖 64 个终点对和 6 种议程。结果显示,大模型引导在语义议程上比关键词匹配提升 9.9% 对齐度(p=0.017),在“政权镇压”议题上提升达 13.3%(p=0.037);而关键词匹配在有字面重合的议程上仍具竞争力。连贯性损失极小:大模型引导仅比无议程基线低 2.2%。与源材料矛盾的反向议程得分均低于 2.5,表明无法捏造无依据的叙事。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Existing narrative extraction methods face a trade-off between coherence, interactivity, and multi-storyline support. Narrative Maps supports rich interaction and generates multiple storylines as a byproduct of its coverage constraints, though this comes at the cost of individual path coherence. Narrative Trails achieves high coherence through maximum capacity path optimization but provides no mechanism for user guidance or multiple perspectives. We introduce agenda-based narrative extraction, a method that bridges this gap by integrating large language models into the Narrative Trails pathfinding process to steer storyline construction toward user-specified perspectives. Our approach uses an LLM at each step to rank candidate documents based on their alignment with a given agenda while maintaining narrative coherence. Running the algorithm with different agendas yields different storylines through the same corpus. We evaluated our approach on a news article corpus using LLM judges with Claude Opus 4.5 and GPT 5.1, measuring both coherence and agenda alignment across 64 endpoint pairs and 6 agendas. LLM-driven steering achieves 9.9% higher alignment than keyword matching on semantic agendas (p=0.017), with 13.3% improvement on \textit{Regime Crackdown} specifically (p=0.037), while keyword matching remains competitive on agendas with literal keyword overlap. The coherence cost is minimal: LLM steering reduces coherence by only 2.2% compared to the agenda-agnostic baseline. Counter-agendas that contradict the source material score uniformly low (2.2-2.5) across all methods, confirming that steering cannot fabricate unsupported narratives.
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。