Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction Abstract and 1 Introduction 2 Related Work 2 Related Work 3 Method and 3.1 Phase 1: Taxonomy Generation 3 Method and 3.1 Phase 1: Taxonomy Generation 3.2 Phase 2: LLM-Augmented Text Classification 3.2 Phase 2: LLM-Augmented Text Classification 4 Evaluation Suite and 4.1 Phase 1 Evaluation Strategies 4 Evaluation Suite and 4.1 Phase 1 Evaluation Strategies 4.2 Phase 2 Evaluation Strategies 4.2 Phase 2 Evaluation Strategies 5 Experiments and 5.1 Data 5 Experiments and 5.1 Data 5.2 Taxonomy Generation 5.2 Taxonomy Generation 5.3 LLM-Augmented Text Classification 5.3 LLM-Augmented Text Classification 5.4 Summary of Findings and Suggestions 5.4 Summary of Findings and Suggestions 6 Discussion and Future Work, and References 6 Discussion and Future Work, and References A. Taxonomies A. Taxonomies B. Additional Results B. Additional Results C. Implementation Details C. Implementation Details D. Prompt Templates D. Prompt Templates B ADDITIONAL RESULTS We present additional results from the experiments conducted for taxonomy generation phase and the label assignment phase. B.1 Phase 1: Taxonomy Generation In addition to the taxonomy evaluation results on BingChatPhase1-S-Eng, we also investigate how the label taxonomy outcome from our proposed TnT-LLM framework perform across different languages. We present the label accuracy results from the GPT-4 rator in Figure 5, where we generally do not find significant differences of its performance on English conversations and non-English conversations. B.2 Phase 2: Label Assignment B.2.1 Annotation Agreement Analysis. We conduct in-depth investigation on the agreement results among human annotators and the LLM annotator for the label assignment task. The agreement results between different pairs of human annotators are presented in Figure 6. The confusion matrix between the GPT-4 annotations and (resolved) human annotations for the primary label on BingChatPhase2-S-Eng dataset is provided in Figure 7. We notice that for user intent, most disagreements occur at the boundary between “Fact-based information seeking” and “Clarification and concept explanation”, “General solution and advice seeking” and “Technical assistance and problem solving”. This suggests that human annotators and the GPT-4 annotator have different judgments on how “technical” or how much elaboration a user query requires. Note all our human annotators have high technical expertise, which may lead them to apply different implicit standards than the general population, resulting in potentially biased annotations. We observe similar patterns in the domain label assignment task, where “General digital support” and “Software development and hardware issues” are often confused, and the GPT-4 annotator has a high false positive rate on the “Software development and hardware issues” if human annotations are considered as oracle. We argue that this kind of analysis can help us identify and reduce potential biases in both human annotations and LLM annotations, and thus improve the clarity of the label description in the taxonomy and the consistency of label annotations. B.2.1 Annotation Agreement Analysis. B.2.2 Full Classification Results. We present the full multiclass classification results from predicting the primary label of a conversation in Figure 11, the full multilabel classification results from predicting all applicable labels in Figure 12, and the by language classification results in Figure 13. We confirm that the conclusions in Section 5.3 still hold. B.2.2 Full Classification Results. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv Authors:
(1) Mengting Wan, Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Corporation;
(2) Tara Safavi (Corresponding authors), Microsoft Corporation;
(3) Sujay Kumar Jauhar, Microsoft Corporation;
(4) Yujin Kim, Microsoft Corporation;
(5) Scott Counts, Microsoft Corporation;
(6) Jennifer Neville, Microsoft Corporation;
(7) Siddharth Suri, Microsoft Corporation;
(8) Chirag Shah, University of Washington and Work done while working at Microsoft;
(9) Ryen W. White, Microsoft Corporation;
(10) Longqi Yang, Microsoft Corporation;
(11) Reid Andersen, Microsoft Corporation;
(12) Georg Buscher, Microsoft Corporation;
(13) Dhruv Joshi, Microsoft Corporation;
(14) Nagu Rangan, Microsoft Corporation. Authors: Authors: (1) Mengting Wan, Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Corporation; (2) Tara Safavi (Corresponding authors), Microsoft Corporation; (3) Sujay Kumar Jauhar, Microsoft Corporation; (4) Yujin Kim, Microsoft Corporation; (5) Scott Counts, Microsoft Corporation; (6) Jennifer Neville, Microsoft Corporation; (7) Siddharth Suri, Microsoft Corporation; (8) Chirag Shah, University of Washington and Work done while working at Microsoft; (9) Ryen W. White, Microsoft Corporation; (10) Longqi Yang, Microsoft Corporation; (11) Reid Andersen, Microsoft Corporation; (12) Georg Buscher, Microsoft Corporation; (13) Dhruv Joshi, Microsoft Corporation; (14) Nagu Rangan, Microsoft Corporation.

Part of HackerNoon's growing list of open-source research papers, promoting free access to academic material.

Microsoft

TnT-LLM: Presenting Prompt Templates

Additional Results: Cross-Lingual Taxonomy Evaluation and In-Depth Classification Analysis

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

256K Tokens on One GPU? Jamba’s Engineering Magic Explained

TnT-LLM: Text Mining at Scale With Large Language Models

Prior Approaches to Text Mining: Taxonomy, Clustering, and LLM Annotation

TnT-LLM: Automating Text Taxonomy Generation and Classification With Large Language Models

TnT-LLM: LLMs for Automated Text Taxonomy and Classification

256K Tokens on One GPU? Jamba’s Engineering Magic Explained

TnT-LLM: Text Mining at Scale With Large Language Models

Prior Approaches to Text Mining: Taxonomy, Clustering, and LLM Annotation

TnT-LLM: Automating Text Taxonomy Generation and Classification With Large Language Models

TnT-LLM: LLMs for Automated Text Taxonomy and Classification

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps