Employing Label Models on ChatGPT Answers Improves Legal Text Entailment Performance

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.17897v1
• Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 15:04:01 GMT
• Title: Employing Label Models on ChatGPT Answers Improves Legal Text Entailment Performance
• Authors: Chau Nguyen and Le-Minh Nguyen
• Abstract summary: ChatGPT is robust in many natural language processing tasks, including legal text entailment. We use label models to integrate the provisional answers by ChatGPT into consolidated labels. The experimental results demonstrate that this approach can attain an accuracy of 76.15%, marking a significant improvement of 8.26% over the prior state-of-the-art benchmark.
• Score: 5.484345596034158
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The objective of legal text entailment is to ascertain whether the assertions in a legal query logically follow from the information provided in one or multiple legal articles. ChatGPT, a large language model, is robust in many natural language processing tasks, including legal text entailment: when we set the temperature = 0 (the ChatGPT answers are deterministic) and prompt the model, it achieves 70.64% accuracy on COLIEE 2022 dataset, which outperforms the previous SOTA of 67.89%. On the other hand, if the temperature is larger than zero, ChatGPT answers are not deterministic, leading to inconsistent answers and fluctuating results. We propose to leverage label models (a fundamental component of weak supervision techniques) to integrate the provisional answers by ChatGPT into consolidated labels. By that way, we treat ChatGPT provisional answers as noisy predictions which can be consolidated by label models. The experimental results demonstrate that this approach can attain an accuracy of 76.15%, marking a significant improvement of 8.26% over the prior state-of-the-art benchmark. Additionally, we perform an analysis of the instances where ChatGPT produces incorrect answers, then we classify the errors, offering insights that could guide potential enhancements for future research endeavors.

Related papers

• Exploring the Capability of ChatGPT to Reproduce Human Labels for Social Computing Tasks (Extended Version) [26.643834593780007]
  We investigate the extent to which ChatGPT can annotate data for social computing tasks. ChatGPT exhibits promise in handling data annotation tasks, albeit with some challenges. We propose GPT-Rater, a tool to predict if ChatGPT can correctly label data for a given annotation task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T22:04:30Z)
• Primacy Effect of ChatGPT [69.49920102917598]
  We study the primacy effect of ChatGPT: the tendency of selecting the labels at earlier positions as the answer. We hope that our experiments and analyses provide additional insights into building more reliable ChatGPT-based solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T00:37:28Z)
• Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators [60.27164804083752]
  We find that the quality ranking of candidate responses can be easily hacked by altering their order of appearance in the context. This manipulation allows us to skew the evaluation result, making one model appear considerably superior to the other. We propose a framework with three simple yet effective strategies to mitigate this issue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T07:41:03Z)
• Evaluating ChatGPT's Information Extraction Capabilities: An Assessment of Performance, Explainability, Calibration, and Faithfulness [18.945934162722466]
  We focus on assessing the overall ability of ChatGPT using 7 fine-grained information extraction (IE) tasks. ChatGPT's performance in Standard-IE setting is poor, but it surprisingly exhibits excellent performance in the OpenIE setting. ChatGPT provides high-quality and trustworthy explanations for its decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-23T12:33:18Z)
• To ChatGPT, or not to ChatGPT: That is the question! [78.407861566006]
  This study provides a comprehensive and contemporary assessment of the most recent techniques in ChatGPT detection. We have curated a benchmark dataset consisting of prompts from ChatGPT and humans, including diverse questions from medical, open Q&A, and finance domains. Our evaluation results demonstrate that none of the existing methods can effectively detect ChatGPT-generated content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-04T03:04:28Z)
• ChatGPT or Grammarly? Evaluating ChatGPT on Grammatical Error Correction Benchmark [11.36853733574956]
  ChatGPT is a cutting-edge artificial intelligence language model developed by OpenAI. We compare it with commercial GEC product (e.g., Grammarly) and state-of-the-art models (e.g., GECToR) We find that ChatGPT performs not as well as those baselines in terms of the automatic evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-15T00:35:50Z)
• Does Synthetic Data Generation of LLMs Help Clinical Text Mining? [51.205078179427645]
  We investigate the potential of OpenAI's ChatGPT to aid in clinical text mining. We propose a new training paradigm that involves generating a vast quantity of high-quality synthetic data. Our method has resulted in significant improvements in the performance of downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-08T03:56:31Z)
• ChatGPT: Jack of all trades, master of none [4.693597927153063]
  OpenAI has released the Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) We examined ChatGPT's capabilities on 25 diverse analytical NLP tasks. We automated ChatGPT and GPT-4 prompting process and analyzed more than 49k responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-21T15:20:37Z)
• Can ChatGPT Understand Too? A Comparative Study on ChatGPT and Fine-tuned BERT [103.57103957631067]
  ChatGPT has attracted great attention, as it can generate fluent and high-quality responses to human inquiries. We evaluate ChatGPT's understanding ability by evaluating it on the most popular GLUE benchmark, and comparing it with 4 representative fine-tuned BERT-style models. We find that: 1) ChatGPT falls short in handling paraphrase and similarity tasks; 2) ChatGPT outperforms all BERT models on inference tasks by a large margin; 3) ChatGPT achieves comparable performance compared with BERT on sentiment analysis and question answering tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-19T12:29:33Z)
• Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver? [113.22611481694825]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to perform a variety of natural language processing (NLP) tasks zero-shot. Recently, the debut of ChatGPT has drawn a great deal of attention from the natural language processing (NLP) community. It is not yet known whether ChatGPT can serve as a generalist model that can perform many NLP tasks zero-shot.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-08T09:44:51Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.