Paired Completion: Flexible Quantification of Issue-framing at Scale with LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.09742v1
• Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 07:14:15 GMT
• Title: Paired Completion: Flexible Quantification of Issue-framing at Scale with LLMs
• Authors: Simon D Angus, Lachlan O'Neill,
• Abstract summary: We develop and rigorously evaluate new detection methods for issue framing and narrative analysis within large text datasets. We show that issue framing can be reliably and efficiently detected in large corpora with only a few examples of either perspective on a given issue.
• Score: 0.41436032949434404
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Detecting and quantifying issue framing in textual discourse - the perspective one takes to a given topic (e.g. climate science vs. denialism, misogyny vs. gender equality) - is highly valuable to a range of end-users from social and political scientists to program evaluators and policy analysts. However, conceptual framing is notoriously challenging for automated natural language processing (NLP) methods since the words and phrases used by either `side' of an issue are often held in common, with only subtle stylistic flourishes separating their use. Here we develop and rigorously evaluate new detection methods for issue framing and narrative analysis within large text datasets. By introducing a novel application of next-token log probabilities derived from generative large language models (LLMs) we show that issue framing can be reliably and efficiently detected in large corpora with only a few examples of either perspective on a given issue, a method we call `paired completion'. Through 192 independent experiments over three novel, synthetic datasets, we evaluate paired completion against prompt-based LLM methods and labelled methods using traditional NLP and recent LLM contextual embeddings. We additionally conduct a cost-based analysis to mark out the feasible set of performant methods at production-level scales, and a model bias analysis. Together, our work demonstrates a feasible path to scalable, accurate and low-bias issue-framing in large corpora.

Related papers

• Semantic Consistency Regularization with Large Language Models for Semi-supervised Sentiment Analysis [20.503153899462323]
  We propose a framework for semi-supervised sentiment analysis. We introduce two prompting strategies to semantically enhance unlabeled text. Experiments show our method achieves remarkable performance over prior semi-supervised methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-29T12:03:11Z)
• Potential and Perils of Large Language Models as Judges of Unstructured Textual Data [0.631976908971572]
  This research investigates the effectiveness of LLM-as-judge models to evaluate the thematic alignment of summaries generated by other LLMs. Our findings reveal that while LLM-as-judge offer a scalable solution comparable to human raters, humans may still excel at detecting subtle, context-specific nuances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T14:49:14Z)
• A Bayesian Approach to Harnessing the Power of LLMs in Authorship Attribution [57.309390098903]
  Authorship attribution aims to identify the origin or author of a document. Large Language Models (LLMs) with their deep reasoning capabilities and ability to maintain long-range textual associations offer a promising alternative. Our results on the IMDb and blog datasets show an impressive 85% accuracy in one-shot authorship classification across ten authors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T04:14:23Z)
• Context is Key: A Benchmark for Forecasting with Essential Textual Information [87.3175915185287]
  "Context is Key" (CiK) is a forecasting benchmark that pairs numerical data with diverse types of carefully crafted textual context. We evaluate a range of approaches, including statistical models, time series foundation models, and LLM-based forecasters. We propose a simple yet effective LLM prompting method that outperforms all other tested methods on our benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T17:56:08Z)
• Long-Span Question-Answering: Automatic Question Generation and QA-System Ranking via Side-by-Side Evaluation [65.16137964758612]
  We explore the use of long-context capabilities in large language models to create synthetic reading comprehension data from entire books. Our objective is to test the capabilities of LLMs to analyze, understand, and reason over problems that require a detailed comprehension of long spans of text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T20:15:10Z)
• SLIDE: A Framework Integrating Small and Large Language Models for Open-Domain Dialogues Evaluation [23.203761925540736]
  We propose a novel framework SLIDE (Small and Large Integrated for Dialogue Evaluation) Our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance in both the classification and evaluation tasks, and additionally the SLIDE exhibits better correlation with human evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T20:32:49Z)
• Towards Next-Generation Steganalysis: LLMs Unleash the Power of Detecting Steganography [18.7168443402118]
  Linguistic steganography provides convenient implementation to hide messages, particularly with the emergence of AI generation technology. Existing methods are limited to finding distribution differences between steganographic texts and normal texts from the aspect of symbolic statistics. This paper propose to employ human-like text processing abilities of large language models (LLMs) to realize the difference from the aspect of human perception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-15T04:52:09Z)
• Generative Judge for Evaluating Alignment [84.09815387884753]
  We propose a generative judge with 13B parameters, Auto-J, designed to address these challenges. Our model is trained on user queries and LLM-generated responses under massive real-world scenarios. Experimentally, Auto-J outperforms a series of strong competitors, including both open-source and closed-source models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T07:27:15Z)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)
• Author Clustering and Topic Estimation for Short Texts [69.54017251622211]
  We propose a novel model that expands on the Latent Dirichlet Allocation by modeling strong dependence among the words in the same document. We also simultaneously cluster users, removing the need for post-hoc cluster estimation. Our method performs as well as -- or better -- than traditional approaches to problems arising in short text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-15T20:55:55Z)

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.