研究不同来源的气候披露文本分类,发现简单方法更易跨源迁移。
What Transfers Under Source Shift? Definitions, Examples, and Fine-Tuning for Climate Disclosure Classification

- 将气候披露分类视为跨来源适应问题,测试三类策略在不同数据源间的表现。
- 定义类方法跨源效果最稳定,但需与目标文本粒度匹配;随机少样本示例更可靠。
- 模型微调和基于相似性的检索在源变化时优势下降明显,越简单越安全。
气候披露分类是分析企业气候信息披露的基础任务,但这类信息来自多种不同来源——年报、新闻稿、财报电话会等,其长度、目的和写作风格差异显著。现有评估大多局限于单一来源,未验证通用大模型适配策略在源域转移下的有效性。本文将气候披露分类重构为跨源适应问题,系统考察三种常用适配策略(定义、示例、微调)在十一款开源与闭源大模型上的表现,使用两个共享标签空间但来源不同的语料库进行实验。结果表明,所有策略在跨源场景下均带来平均正向提升,但最强的在源内表现策略并非最优跨源策略:基于相似性检索与LoRA微调在源内表现突出,但在源转移时优势大幅削弱;随机选择的少量示例虽为较弱的源内基线,却具备更强的跨源鲁棒性;定义类方法跨源转移最为一致,前提是其粒度与目标文本相匹配。总体而言,源改变时,简单方法往往更具可靠性。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Climate disclosure classification is a fundamental task for analysing corporate climate disclosures, yet such disclosures appear in many different sources -- annual reports, press releases, and earnings calls -- that differ in length, purpose, and writing style. Existing evaluations are mostly conducted within a single source, leaving open whether common LLM adaptation strategies remain effective under source shift. We reframe climate disclosure classification as a cross-source adaptation problem and study three widely used adaptation strategies -- definitions, examples, and fine-tuning -- across eleven open- and closed-source LLMs, using two corpora that share the same label space but come from different sources. We find that all strategies bring positive cross-source gains on average, but the strongest in-source strategies are not the strongest cross-source ones: similarity-based retrieval and LoRA fine-tuning gain most in-source but lose most of that advantage under source shift; randomly selected few-shot examples, a weaker in-source baseline, retain their advantage more reliably; definitions transfer most consistently, though only when their granularity matches the target text. Across these strategies, when the source changes, simpler is often safer.
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。